Brief generation is in private beta. Join the waitlist for a free pilot brief. Join waitlist →
SKIP TO MAIN CONTENT
BENCHRECON

← Forensic Foundation Pack

DUI defenders attacking breath-test reliability and source-code disclosure.

Daubert / Source-Code Challenge — Breath Alcohol Instruments

FRE 702 + due-process motion to compel Intoxilyzer / Datamaster source code. Seven-state appellate corpus grounded.

File the source-code-disclosure motion and the Daubert motion in tandem. The independent Base One audit ordered in State v. Chun — roughly 19,400 potential code errors — is the lever.

“an independent source-code review by Base One Technologies identified approximately 19,400 potential code errors in the breath-test instrument's software.”

State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54, 943 A.2d 114 (N.J. 2008) (Supreme Court of New Jersey)(opens in new tab)
Order — $197 →

PDF delivered to your inbox.

What this template gives you that the discipline-specific treatise does not.
  1. 01.

    Seven states (FL, MA, NJ, LA, MN, TN, AZ) have a record of source-code-disclosure orders or due-process rulings on breath instruments.

  2. 02.

    Many courts treat the breath result as conclusive without demanding the underlying calibration / source-code record.

  3. 03.

    The multi-state litigation record documents that prior software versions cannot be reliably reconstructed — a foundational-reliability fact most defenders never get into the record.

Order intake.

Daubert — Breathalyzer — Case details

Brief PDF delivered here. Stripe checkout uses this address.

Do not enter the actual client name. Use any internal identifier — BenchRecon never needs the real name.

Court the matter is pending in. Stamps the brief cover and the conform-to-jurisdiction caveat in the motion language (federal or state court — the methodology challenges apply under either standard).

Billing entity — rendered on the brief cover and included on the invoice when provided.

Privilege handling

Intake data is stored under attorney work-product principles. BenchRecon does not access the intake payload outside of brief generation. Do not enter privileged client communications, defense strategy, or identifying details — submit only the case parameters this form requests.

Charged after you submit. 7-day full refund.

Frequently asked questions.

What does the brief contain?

Seven sections: cover (your case identifier + jurisdiction stamped on), reliability standard recap (Daubert v. Merrell Dow factors), the lead authority's verbatim finding with source URL, the cumulative-error history with cited exonerations / IG audits / appellate opinions, recommended FRE 702 motion language (~250 words editable), a 10-15 question cross-examination question bank, and the methods + source URLs bibliography.

Is this legal advice?

No. The template is a research artifact modeled on the published critique literature for this discipline. Counsel of record adapts the motion language to the controlling circuit's FRE 702 doctrine and the facts of the case before filing.

How fast is delivery?

Stripe checkout completes in seconds; the PDF is emailed to the address you provide. Templates are pre-built — there is no per-case data pipeline running.

Do you cite anything I cannot independently verify?

No. Every citation in every brief carries a source URL stored alongside. Lead authorities are PCAST 2016, NAS 2009 / 2014, NRC 1979 / 2003, FBI/DOJ 2015. All are public-domain and linked to their original publication pages.

Refund policy?

7-day full refund, no questions asked.