State v. Bernini, 2009 WL 922471 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2009)
Key Insight: Court of Appeals found ?[t]he respondent judge erred as a matter of law and abused her discretion in ordering the state to produce source code material for the Intoxilyzer 8000 that it did not possess and had been unable to obtain, without any evidence the state had “better access” than defendants to what CMI maintains are trade secrets? and vacated trial court?s order directing the state to obtain the requested code
Nature of Case: Consolidated appeal of defendants charged with DUI
Electronic Data Involved: Source code of Intoxilyzer 8000