Loading…
The uniform Article 39.14 order for DWI breath-test discovery in the criminal county courts at law: on signature in a case the State must produce electronic copies of the Intoxilyzer 9000's Instrument Certificate File, Solution File (AutoCal and simulator solution certifications, ethanol expiration records), database report (six months before through one month after the test), Maintenance File, NIST traceability and thermometer-calibration records, technical-supervisor–DPS communications (six months before through two months after), the simulator-solution protocol, the data-management software manual, software-update records, the operator's history file and certificate, the technical supervisor's certificate, unpublished operating policies, DPS annual inspection reports for a year before and after, and the raw .xls data, with copy and labor charges capped by Government Code Chapter 552 subchapter F rates and an itemized estimate when charges exceed $40.
Applies to DWI cases in County Courts at Law Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of Bexar County when the standard order is signed in the case; adopted for all thirteen criminal county courts at law by 2018 SO 06 and re-adopted by the current bench in 2023 SO 09 (TOPICs doc 1546). County Courts at Law Nos. 2 and 7 have entered their own breath-test production orders (docs 1669 and 1707). Procedural information only; not legal advice.
2018 SO 06 — SPECIAL ORDER. STATE OF TEXAS, COUNTY OF BEXAR — IN THE COUNTY COURTS GIVING PREFERENCE TO CRIMINAL MATTERS 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, AND 15. ADOPTION OF STANDARD ORDER FOR DISCOVERY OF BLOOD TESTING RECORDS FOR INTOXILYZER 9000 [sic — the attached standard order is the breath-test order]. The County Court at Law Judges hearing criminal matters hereby adopt the above-referenced Order. It is ORDERED that this Special Order be filed for record with the County Clerk of Bexar County. SIGNED, ORDERED, AND ENTERED ON THIS 22nd day of May 2018, by: Judge John A. Longoria, Administrative Judge, County Court at Law No. 5; Judge John Fleming, County Court at Law No. 1; Judge Walden Shelton, County Court at Law No. 9; Judge Jason Wolff, County Court at Law No. 2; Judge Tommy Stolhandske, County Court at Law No. 11; Judge Jason Garrahan, County Court at Law No. 4; Judge Scott Roberts, County Court at Law No. 12; Judge Wayne A. Christian, County Court at Law No. 6; Judge Crystal Chandler, County Court at Law No. 13; Judge Eugenia "Genie" Wright, County Court at Law No. 7; Judge Susan Skinner, County Court at Law No. 14; Judge Celeste Brown, County Court at Law No. 8; Judge Robert D. Behrens, County Court at Law No. 15. STANDARD JOINT ORDER FOR DISCOVERY OF BREATH TEST RECORDS FOR INTOXILYZER 9000 (Cause No. ____, State of Texas v. ____, In the County Court at Law No. ____, Bexar County, Texas) THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS the State to produce the following designated documents pursuant to Article 39.14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: 1. An electronic copy (.pdf) of any and all items contained and maintained in the "Instrument Certificate File" as required by the Standard Operating Guidelines for Technical Supervisors (OSD-TST-01 5.A) for the Intoxilyzer used for the test in this case. This information is available at: http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimelaboratory/BAT/index.htm. 2. An electronic copy (.pdf) of any and all items contained and maintained in the "Solution File" as required by OSD-TST-015.5, for the Intoxilyzer solution used for the test in this case. This includes: a. Any and all certifications, confirmations or verifications from any source for the AutoCal and simulator solutions that were used in relation to the Intoxilyzer used for the test in this case; and b. All logs, records, or other documents reflecting the expiration date of the pure ethanol used to create any AutoCal or reference solutions in relation to the Intoxilyzer used for the test in this case. c. "Documents" includes items that are maintained either in paper or electronic form and specifically includes emails. 3. An electronic copy (.pdf) of the full database report as provided by the Standard Operating Guidelines for Technical Supervisors OSD-TST-01 5.1 for the Intoxilyzer used for the test in this case. This request is limited to items dating from six months before through one month after the test in this case. 4. An electronic copy (.pdf) of any and all items contained and maintained in the "Maintenance File" as required by OSD-TST-015.2, for the Intoxilyzer used for the test in this case. This request is limited to items dating from six months before through one month after the test in this case. 5. An electronic copy (.pdf) of any and all documents provided or required by OSD-CAL-01 4.3 relating to NIST traceability, unbiased estimate, nominal value and combined uncertainty of the reference solutions used to perform instrument calibrations on the Intoxilyzer used for the test in this case. "Documents" includes items that are maintained either in paper or electronic form and specifically includes emails. 6. An electronic copy (.pdf) of any and all items and reports reflecting or evidencing calibration of the NIST traceable thermometers by an approved vendor during the instrument calibration procedure performed prior to the defendant's test as required by OSD-CAL-01 4.4A for the Intoxilyzer used for the test in this case. 7. Any and all documents reflecting, evidencing or concerning communications between any technical supervisor having authority over the Intoxilyzer used for the test in this case and an employee or representative of the Department of Public Safety relating to calibration, maintenance, repair, or operation of the Intoxilyzer used for the test in this case. "Documents" includes items that are maintained either in paper or electronic form and specifically includes emails. This request is limited to items dating from six months before through two months after the test in this case. 8. An electronic copy (.pdf) of the protocol or instruction for the creation of the simulator solution used in the Intoxilyzer used for the test in this case. 9. A copy of the operator's manual or instruction (and all documents reflecting, evidencing or concerning procedures or instruction) for the software used to collect, store and manage data downloaded from the Intoxilyzer as well as to communicate with the machine remotely. "Documents" includes items that are maintained either in paper or electronic form and specifically excludes any phone numbers and passwords. This information is available at http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimelaboratory/BAT/index.htm 10. All documents reflecting or documenting changes to the software update the Intoxilyzer used for the test in this case. 11. An electronic copy (.pdf) of the operator's history file and the certificate authorizing the Intoxilyzer operator in this case to operate the Intoxilyzer used in this case. 12. An electronic copy (.pdf) of the certificate authorizing the technical supervisor(s) to supervise the operator and machine in this case. 13. An electronic copy (.pdf) of all policies governing the operation of the Intoxilyzer used in this case not otherwise published or contained in the Texas Administrative Code, a statute of this State or contained in the Standard Operating Guidelines for Technical Supervisors. 14. An electronic copy (.pdf) of all DPS annual Inspection Reports for one year before and after the test in this case. 15. The electronic file(s) (.xls) containing the raw data generated by the Intoxilyzer used in this case. This request is limited to items dating from six months before through one month after the test in this case. 16. Any imposition of a charge for this request shall comply with subchapter F, Chapter 552, Government Code. a. Standard paper copies may be charged at a rate of $.10 per page or part of a page. Oversize paper copies may be charged at a rate of $.50 per page. Copies on specialty paper may be charged for the actual cost of copies. b. Non-paper copies may be charged at the following rates: i. Per Diskette: $1.00; ii. Per Data Cartridge, magnetic tape, or tape cartridge: actual cost; iii. Per Rewritable CD (CD-RW): $1.00; iv. Per Non-rewritable CD (CD-R): $1.00; v. Per Digital video disc (DVD): $3.00; vi. Per JAZ drive: Actual Cost; vii. Per Other item of electronic media: Actual cost. c. Labor charges: i. For Programming: If a particular discovery item requires the services of a programmer in order to execute an existing program or to create a new program so that the requested information may be accessed and copied, the hourly programmer's charge of $28.50 per hour may be assessed. A written statement must be provided when response to this order requires cost of programming or manipulation of data or when compliance with the order is not feasible or will result in substantial interference with ongoing operations; ii. For locating, compiling, manipulating data, and reproducing discoverable information: A labor charge of $15 per hour may be charged in complying with this order if providing responses that are 50 pages or more of paper records, or if the documents are located in two or more separate buildings that are not physically connected with each other, or a remote storage facility. Labor charge may include time spent redacting obscure confidential information. a. If a labor charge is applicable to items ordered in discovery, an overhead charge of 20% of the labor costs may be assessed for items produced in response to discovery which are greater than 50 pages. d. Microfiche and microfilm charges for information already existing on microfiche or microfilm may not exceed the cost of reproduction. If only a master copy of information on microfilm is maintained and more than 50 copies are required, a charge of $.10 per page may be applied in addition to applicable labor and overhead charges. e. A remote document retrieval charge may apply if retrieval of documents stored in remote locations results in a charge to comply with the discovery order. f. Computer resource charge: A computer resource charge based on the actual time the computer takes to execute a particular program. g. Postal and shipping charges necessary to transmit the reproduced information to a requesting party may be assessed. h. Miscellaneous charges: If payment by credit card is accepted, a "transaction fee" may be assessed by the credit card company that may recover that fee. The actual costs of miscellaneous supplies used to produce the requested information may be added to the total charge. 17. If a discovery request will result in charges that exceed $40, a written itemized statement detailing all estimated charges shall be provided. Signed and entered on ____. Judge Presiding, County Court at Law No. ____.
2018 SO 06 — SPECIAL ORDER. STATE OF TEXAS, COUNTY OF BEXAR — IN THE COUNTY COURTS GIVING PREFERENCE TO CRIMINAL MATTERS 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, AND 15. ADOPTION OF STANDARD ORDER FOR DISCOVERY OF BLOOD TESTING RECORDS FOR INTOXILYZER 9000 [sic — the attached standard order is the breath-test order]. The County Court at Law Judges hearing criminal matters hereby adopt the above-ref
Reviewer note: Composed 2026-09-08 from the TOPICs custody file (six image-only pages, all read through the vision lane and transcribed). The 2018 cover order is captioned "Discovery of Blood Testing Records for Intoxilyzer 9000" although the attached standard order — and the 2023 re-adoption — concern breath testing; transcribed as registered with a [sic]. The 2018 signers have all left the bench; the instrument remains adopted through 2023 SO 09. No judge join.
Standing order of the 109th Judicial District Court for every pending or later-filed case in Andrews, Winkler and Crane Counties: any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in a case must, before using AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the court's certification form stating that all language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis created or contributed to by generative AI were verified as accurate by a human through traditional (non-AI) legal sources, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for their or their co-counsel's failure to comply. Effective immediately; in effect until rescinded or replaced.
Standing order of the 109th Judicial District Court for every pending or later-filed case in Andrews, Winkler and Crane Counties: any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in a case must, before using AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the court's certification form stating that all language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis created or contributed to by generative AI were verified as accurate by a human through traditional (non-AI) legal sources, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for their or their co-counsel's failure to comply. Effective immediately; in effect until rescinded or replaced.