Donovan Frank

Donovan Frank

United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (senior status)

Tenure

2016 - Present

Years in position

8

Prior offices

United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

Education

Personal

Campaign finance provisions (2014)

See also: United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (Seaton et al v. Wiener et al, Civil No. 14-1016 (DWF/JSM))

On May 19, 2014, Frank struck down a Minnesota campaign finance provision prohibiting candidates from receiving large contributions after having already received a certain number of large contributions. For example, under the law in question, the first 12 donors to a state legislative candidate could contribute up to $1,000, but subsequent donors could only contribute a maximum of $500. With Frank's ruling, this prohibition no longer applies.^[4][5]

DUI tester code case (2009)

See also: United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (State et al v. CMI OF KENTUCKY, INC., Civil No. 08-603 (DWF/AJB))

On July 16, 2009, Judge Donovan Frank certified a settlement that gave the state of Minnesota and criminal defendants access to a digital code that runs the breath-test device for suspected drunken drivers.^[6]

Attorneys for the State of Minnesota and CMI, a company that manufactures the Intoxilyzer 5000EN, pushed for approval of the settlement at a hearing Judge Frank conducted in June of 2009. Defense attorneys in Minnesota opposed the settlement by claiming it can hurt defendants in drunk driving cases.^[6]

Judge Frank also stated in his ruling: "The State may move forward with prosecution of DWI offenses and revocation proceedings using the Intoxilyzer and defendants will have reasonable andunprecedented access to the source code used for the Intoxilyzer, while CMI'sintellectual property rights are protected."^[6]
Defense lawyers expressed concern that Judge Frank's ruling would force attorneys to spend more time and money to determine whether the device contained errors and provided faulty readings.^[6]
In an April 2009 ruling, the Minnesota Supreme Court ordered that the Intoxilyzer source code should be handed over to defendants. However, the code Intoxilyzer source code was not issued to any defendants until a settlement in the federal case was approved. From the April Supreme Court ruling to the July settlement, some drunk driving cases were dismissed in Minnesota.^[6]

• The Minnesota Supreme Court ruling can be read here: In Re: Commissioner of Public Safety.

1. ↑ ^{1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3} Federal Judicial Center, "Biographical directory of federal judges," accessed November 3, 2016
2. ↑ American Bar Association, "Ratings of Article III judicial nominees, 105th Congress," accessed November 3, 2016
3. ↑ United States Congress, "PN 1113 — Donovan W. Frank — The Judiciary," accessed November 3, 2016
4. ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. District Court Enjoins Minnesota Campaign Contribution Limit," May 19, 2014
5. ↑ United States District Court, District of Minnesota, "Civil No. 14-1016 (DWF/JSM)," May 19, 2014
6. ↑ ^{6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4} Star Tribune, "State, defendants get access to code that runs DWI tester," July 16, 2009 (dead link)