| Case Name | Date | Docket Number | Issue and Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| State v. Ventrice | Dec 28, 2001 | 01-1494-CR | Coercion - D appealed from a judgment of conviction for four counts of causing injury by use of a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant pursuant to Wis. Stat. §346.63(2)(a), and four counts of causing injury while operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration pursuant to Wis. Stat. §346.63(2)(a). D contended: (1)the strict liability offense he was charged with entitled him to assert a defense of coercion, and (2)because he offered sufficient evidence to warrant a jury instruction on coercion, he should have been permitted to assert that defense at trial. The Court of Appeals concluded that §346.63(2)(a) does not preclude a coercion defense and that D satisfied his burden of production so that he was entitled to argue the defense before a jury. The Court of Appeals therefore reversed and remanded for a new trial. |
| State v. Cotton | Dec 21, 2001 | 01-1443 | Issue Preclusion, Reasonable Suspicion - D appealed his judgment of conviction for a disorderly conduct municipal forfeiture and an order denying his motion to suppress evidence. D argued that there was no reasonable suspicion to pull his car over and that his continued detention was unjustified. The Court of Appeals concluded that D failed to preserve these issues in the context of his plea to a county ordinance violation. The Court of Appeals therefore affirmed the judgment and order of the trial court. |
| State v. Hinzmann | Dec 20, 2001 | 01-1950 | Implied Consent - D appealed from the trial court's order determining that he unlawfully refused to submit to a chemical test in violation of Wis. Stat. §343.305(9). D contended that since he did ultimately agree to submit to a blood test, the purpose of the refusal statute was met and that certain of the officer's explanations and the officer's attempt to obtain his signature interfered with his ability to make a choice that complied with the law. The Court of Appeals rejected both arguments and affirmed. |
| County
of Waukesha v. Islami | Dec 19, 2001 | 01-1166 | Implied Consent - D appealed from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), first offense, pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 346.63(1)(a) and 346.65(2)(a). D was found guilty of the charge following a jury trial. He contested the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence of a breath test obtained pursuant to the implied consent law. On appeal, D contended that the arresting officer disregarded his request for a blood test under the implied consent law as required by State v. Renard, 123 Wis. 2d 458, 367 N.W.2d 237 (Ct. App. 1985). The Court of Appeals disagreed and therefore affirmed. |
| State v. Carlson | Dec 19, 2001 | 01-1088 | Special Prosecutors, Fundamental v. Technical Errors, Timeliness of Pre-Revocation Hearings - D appealed a circuit court order finding "unreasonable" his refusal to submit to a chemical test requested pursuant to Wis. Stat. §343.305 (1999-2000). D sought dismissal of his refusal conviction based on claims of procedural error. First, he argued that the court lacked the authority to appoint, or to accept the appointment of, a special prosecutor in this case because the statute authorizing the use of special prosecutors is limited to cases that are not civil. Second, he argued that the refusal charge should be dismissed with prejudice because he was sanctioned for the refusal before his hearing was granted. First, the Court of Appeals concluded that the appointment of a special prosecutor in this case was within the trial court's authority. Second, the Court of Appeals concluded that even though D was improperly revoked, in this particular situation, the error was technical and non-prejudicial. |
| State v. Roberts | Dec 19, 2001 | 01-1636-CR 01-1637-CR 01-1638-CR | Admission and/or Proof of Repeater Status - D pled no contest to bail jumping as a repeater. He sought relief from the plea on the grounds that he never admitted his repeater status at the time of the plea nor did the State prove his repeater status. D also sought relief from his pleas to operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), fourth offense, and operating that vehicle after revocation (OAR), fifth offense, on similar grounds-that he never admitted his prior convictions nor did the State prove them. The Court of Appeals agreed with D on both issues. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with directions. |
| State v. Lowe | Dec 18, 2001 | 01-1163-CR | Probable Cause, Double Jeopardy - D appealed a judgment convicting him of several drug offenses. D argued that because the arresting officer lacked probable cause to believe a crime had been committed, the trial court erroneously denied his suppression motion. Therefore, D contended that his arrest violated his Fourth Amendment rights. He also challenged his conviction as multiplicitous and violative of double jeopardy. D further argued that he did not receive a judicial determination to justify or support his warrantless arrest and that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion by finding there was probable cause. The Court of Appeals disagreed with, or dismissed as insufficiently developed, all of D's arguments. |
| State v. Daggett | Dec 11, 2001 | 01-1417-CR | Blood Test: Requirements - The State appealed from a pretrial order suppressing the results of a chemical analysis of D's blood. The Court of Appeals reversed the order because it concluded that the warrantless blood draw, performed by a doctor in the police booking room, was reasonable and, therefore, constitutional. |
| State v. Kahl | Dec 11, 2001 | 01-1771-CR | Implied
Consent - D appealed from a
judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated in
violation of Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(a), second offense. D challenged the
denial of his motion to suppress the results of a chemical test of his blood. Specifically, he contended that the police were required to obtain a search warrant before submitting his blood sample for testing. D also contended that his consent to the blood test pursuant to the implied consent law was coercive and therefore unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals rejected his arguments and affirmed the judgment. |
| State v. Ziebell | Dec 11, 2001 | 01-2035 | Implied Consent, Exercise of Discretion - The sole issue on appeal is whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it denied D's motion to dismiss the charge for refusing to take a blood alcohol test after she pled guilty to the underlying charge of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant. Because the circuit court applied an incorrect standard of law when exercising its discretion, the Court of Appeals reversed the order and remanded the matter to the trial court. |
| City of Clintonville v. Kuhn | Dec 6, 2001 | 01-1182 | Probable Cause - D appealed a judgment convicting him of operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration, in violation of a city ordinance. He claimed the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of the result of a breath test administered following his arrest. Specifically, he claimed that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to arrest him for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant (OMVWI) prior to administering a preliminary breath test (PBT), and that the court erroneously admitted the PBT reading at the hearing on D's motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals rejected D's arguments and affirmed the appealed judgment. |
| City of Whitewater v. Wyczawskir | Dec 5, 2001 | 01-0702 | Blood Test: Authorized Person, Chain of Custody, Expert Testimony - D appealed from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant (OWI). D argued that the results of his blood alcohol test should not have been admitted because (1) there was no evidence that his blood was withdrawn by a person authorized under Wis. Stat. §343.305(5)(b); and (2) there was insufficient evidence to establish a proper chain of custody for his blood sample. D also argued that the judgment should be reversed because the trial court erroneously allowed the City of Whitewater's expert witness to answer improper hypothetical questions. The Court of Appeals agreed that there was no evidence in the record that D's blood was drawn by a person authorized to do so under §343.305(5)(b). The Court of Appeals therefore reversed the judgment of conviction and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion. |
| State v. Harding | Dec 5, 2001 | 01-1425-CR | Reasonable Suspicion, Finding of Fact- The State appealed from a trial court order suppressing all evidence resulting from the arrest of D. The State contended that the trial court erred in finding that the arresting officer did not have "reasonable suspicion" to stop D pursuant to Wis. Stat. §968.24 and Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). The State additionally argued that the trial court's determination was based in part upon an erroneous finding of fact. The Court of Appeals concluded that even assuming the trial court made an erroneous finding of fact, the police did not have the requisite reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle in which Harding was a passenger. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order. |
| City of Sturgeon Bay v. Thenell | Dec 4, 2001 | 01-2184 | Findings of Fact - D appealed a judgment convicting her of failing to stop at a stop sign, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 346.46(1). The basic tenor of her principal argument was that the trial court erred when it found the arresting officer's testimony more credible than D's. Because the trial court's determination of credibility was binding on the Court of Appeals and D did not show that its findings of fact were clearly erroneous, the judgment was affirmed. |
| State v. Brazee | Dec 4, 2001 | 01-1632-CR | Issue Preclusion, Implied Consent - D appealed her conviction for third offense operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant (OWI), contrary to Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(a). D claimed that the circuit court erred by rejecting her motion to suppress blood test results on the basis of issue preclusion. D argued that the State was estopped from arguing that Wisconsin's implied consent law does not provide the exclusive remedy when an OWI suspect refuses to submit to chemical testing to determine blood-alcohol content. The Court of Appeals concluded that there were public policy factors that would render application of issue preclusion fundamentally unfair to the State. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's judgment. |
| State v. Stewart | Dec 4, 2001 | 01-0356-CR | Plea Colloquy - D, appealing pro se, raised numerous issues challenging his conviction, after a jury trial, for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant (OWI), fourth offense. The State conceded that the trial court had failed to conduct a colloquy to determine whether D voluntarily waived his right to counsel. Consequently, the State suggested that the Court of Appeals remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine if D's waiver of his right to counsel was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. The Court of Appeals agreed and remanded the matter on that issue. However, the court rejected D's remaining issues. |
| State v. Butz | Nov 28, 2001 | 01-1696-FT | Findings of Fact, Probable Cause - D appealed from the decision of the trial court finding that her refusal to submit to chemical testing was unreasonable. In this appeal, she challenged the credibility of the arresting officer and contended that if the finder of fact would "discount[] the untruths told by the arresting officer," there was no probable cause to arrest her for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant. The Court of Appeals affirmed because at the refusal hearing, the State met its burden of establishing that the officer's account was plausible. |
| City of Menomonie v. Herman | Nov 27, 2001 | 01-1908-FT | Reasonable Suspicion - D appealed a judgment convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§346.63(1)(a) and 346.63(1)(b). D argued that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress because the arresting officer did not have reasonable suspicion to request and administer field sobriety tests. The Court of Appeals rejected D's argument and affirmed the judgment. |
| State v. Baskin | Nov 27, 2001 | 01-1763-CR | Reasonable
Suspicion - D appealed a judgment of
conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an
intoxicant, second offense, contrary to Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a). He
argued that the circuit court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence based upon a lack of reasonable suspicion to stop him for a traffic violation. The Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed the judgment. |
| State v. Horneck | Nov 27, 2001 | 01-1350-FT | Warrantless Pursuit into a D's Garage - D appealed from the circuit court's order revoking his driving privileges for refusing to submit to a chemical test requested pursuant to Wisconsin's Implied Consent Law, Wis. Stat. § 343.305. At the refusal hearing, D contended, as he did on appeal, that the arresting officer lacked the authority under the Fourth Amendment to enter his garage to investigate or arrest him without a warrant. The circuit court concluded that the officer had authority to enter D''s garage and arrest him. The Court of Appeals agreed and affirmed the revocation order. |
| State v. Hart | Nov 21, 2001 | 00-1444 | Search Incident to Transport Without Arrest, Terry Search, Public Safety Function - The State contended that the existence of probable cause for operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) by itself was enough to justify a search of an inebriated citizen whom an officer decided not arrest, but instead to transfer to the station for the purpose of arranging safe transportation. A protective frisk for weapons produced not a weapon but a marijuana pipe. The Court of Appeals agreed there are circumstances when, based upon probable cause, an arrest is inevitable and therefore it is a mere formality whether arrest comes before or after the search. In this case, however, no arrest was going to occur at the time of the search. Therefore, the Court of Appeals held that the search was not a valid search incident to arrest. Because the pat-down was unconstitutional, the denial of the motion to suppress is reversed as far as the conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia is concerned. The court affirmed a related conviction for operating while intoxicated, second offense, because that charge was not sufficiently connected to the illegal pat-down. Rec. For Publication |
| State v. Hart | Nov 21, 2001 | 01-1349-CR | Admissibility of Evidence, Jury Instructions - D appealed from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), third offense, contrary to Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a). D argued that the trial court erred when it refused to allow him to introduce as evidence the results of his brother's preliminary breath test. D further argued that the trial court erred in giving Wis JI-Criminal 520 instruction to the jury after receiving a note from the jury that it was deadlocked. The Court of Appeals disagreed with both these contentions and affirmed the judgment of conviction. |
| State v. Schulte | Nov 15, 2001 | 01-0707-CR | Implied Consent - D appealed a judgment convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant (OMVWI). He claimed that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of a blood test administered following his arrest. D conceded, however, that under the holding in State v. Thorstad, 2000 WI App 199, 238 Wis.2d 666, 618 N.W.2d 240, the trial court did not err in rejecting his claim that the arresting officer was constitutionally required to administer a breath test instead of the "more intrusive" blood test. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the appealed judgment. |
| State v. Eckola | Nov 13, 2001 | 01-1044-CR | Sentencing: Presumptive Minimum - D was convicted of operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration, sixth offense, contrary to Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(b). The State argued that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by placing D on probation without requiring him to serve at least the presumptive minimum period of incarceration required by Wis. Stat. §346.65(2)(e). The Court of Appeals agreed. Therefore, it reversed the order and remanded for resentencing. |
| State v. Albert | Nov 13, 2001 | 01-1594-CR | Jury Misconduct - A jury convicted D of operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited blood-alcohol concentration of .10 percent. The jury also found him not guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant in connection with the same incident. D asserted two claims of trial-court error. First, he contended that the trial court should have granted a mistrial when a juror lied about telling someone during the trial that he was leaning towards finding D guilty. Second, he claimed that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it did not grant an adjournment because the State belatedly turned over discovery material. The Court of Appeals reversed on the first issue, and, accordingly, did not discuss the second. See Gross v. Hoffman, 227 Wis. 296, 300, 277 N.W. 663, 665 (1938) (only dispositive issue need be addressed). |
| State v. Edidin | Nov 8, 2001 | 01-1003 | Implied Consent - D appealed an order revoking his operating privilege for failing to submit to chemical testing as required under Wis. Stat. §343.305. D contended that because the arresting officer did not comply with Wisconsin's Implied Consent Law, the circuit court erred in finding that he unlawfully refused to submit to the test. Specifically, D argued that the officer should have administered a breath test, the agency's "primary" test, instead of requesting him to submit to a blood test. The Court of Appeals concluded that, under §343.305(3)(a), the arresting officer was authorized to request D to provide a sample of his blood for testing, notwithstanding the fact that the State Patrol may have designated the breath test as its "primary" test under §343.305(2). |
| State v. Meddaugh | Nov 1, 2001 | 01-0691-CR | Implied Consent- D appealed a judgment convicting him of operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration. D challenged the denial of his motion to suppress the results of a chemical test of his blood. He contended that police should have obtained a search warrant before conducting the blood analysis. The Court of Appeals concluded that, under Wisconsin's Implied Consent Law, D consented to both the blood draw and its subsequent analysis. The court therefore affirmed the judgment of conviction. |
| State v. Costello | Oct 31, 2001 | 01-0310-CR | Implied Consent - D appealed from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), third offense, contrary to Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a). D argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of a blood test taken without a warrant. D argued that the blood test was unreasonable because he had submitted to a preliminary breath test and was willing to submit to a second breath test. D additionally argued that the blood sample was taken in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because there were no exigent circumstances. The Court of Appeals rejected D's arguments and affirmed the trial court's order and the judgment of conviction. |
| State v. Shearer | Oct 25, 2001 | 01-0739 | Probable Cause - D appealed an order revoking his operating privilege for refusing to submit to a chemical test of his blood alcohol concentration under Wis. Stat. §343.305. D claimed the trial court erred in concluding that the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest him for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant (OMVWI) before requesting a blood test. The Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed the revocation order. |
| State v. Stratton | Oct 25, 2001 | 01-0259 | Exercise of Discretion - D appealed the circuit court's order denying his motion to vacate the order suspending his operating privilege. D contended the court erroneously exercised its discretion in denying the motion. The Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed. |
| City of Oconomowoc v. Verburgt | Oct 24, 2001 | 01-1334 | Reasonable Suspicion, Probable Cause - In this appeal, D raised several challenges to his conviction for drunk driving. First, he asserted that the videotape of the traffic stop did not demonstrate an observable basis for the suspicion that he was under the influence of alcohol and that the arresting officer's conclusion that there was probable cause is faulty. Second, he asserted that there was no probable cause to request a preliminary breath test (PBT). Third, he challenged the constitutionality of Wis. Stat. §343.303. Because the Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient probable cause to support an arrest without the PBT results, it did not reach the other issues raised by D. |
| Village of Plover v. Pittman | Oct 18, 2001 | 01-0974 | Admissibility of Evidence, Harmless Error - D appealed a jury verdict finding him guilty of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, in violation of Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a). D contended that the trial court erred by excluding testimony related to his reasons for refusing to submit to a chemical test for alcohol. The Court of Appeals concluded that even if it were to assume that the challenged testimony were admissible, the circuit court's decision to exclude it was harmless error. It affirmed the judgment of conviction and the circuit court's denial of D's motion for a new trial. |
| State v. Lewis | Oct 16, 2001 | 01-0399-CR | Sentence Modification, Exercise of Discretion, Reasonable Suspicion - D appealed from a judgment of conviction and sentence after he pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon, contrary to Wis. Stat. §941.29(2)(a) (1999-2000). D also appealed from an order denying his postconviction motion to modify his sentence. D claimed: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress a firearm found in a car during a traffic stop; (2) the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it determined that pending charges were not new factors warranting sentence modification; and (3) the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it imposed what he claims is an unduly harsh sentence. The Court of Appeals affirmed. |
| County of Dane v. Mawhinney | Oct 11, 2001 | 01-0595 | Probable Cause - D was charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration, both as first offenses. He moved to suppress the results of a blood alcohol test. The circuit court granted the motion because it concluded that the police did not have probable cause to arrest. The Court of Appeals concluded that the police did have probable cause when the blood test was taken, reversed the circuit court's suppression order, and remanded for further proceedings. |
| State v. Tinder | Oct 11, 2001 | 01-0689-CR | Constitutional
Challenge Requirements - D appealed a judgment of
conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an
intoxicant. D suggested that the circuit court erred in denying his
motions to suppress evidence of his blood alcohol content. Because D failed to inform the Attorney General of his constitutional challenge, the Court of Appeals did not reach the merits of his argument. |
| State v. VanLaarhoven | Oct 10, 2001 | 01-0222-CR | Implied Consent - D appealed from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor while intoxicated, third offense, in violation of Wis. Stat. §§ 346.63(1)(a) and 346.65(2)(c). D challenged the denial of his motion to suppress the results of a chemical test of his blood. Specifically, D contended that the police were required to obtain a search warrant before submitting his blood sample for testing. The Court of Appeals rejected his argument and affirmed the judgment of conviction. |
| State v. Baskin | Oct 9, 2001 | 01-1375-CR |
Reasonable Suspicion - D appealed from a judgment, entered on his guilty pleas, convicting him of unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon, see Wis. Stat. §941.23, and possession of tetrahydrocannabinols, see Wis. Stat.§961.41(3g)(e). He challenged the trial court's denial of his suppression motion. Because the State failed to establish reasonable suspicion, the Court of Appeals reversed. |
| State v. Dodski | Oct 9, 2001 | 01-0955 | Constitutionality of Implied Consent Law - D appealed her judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant (OWI), first offense, contrary to Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a). D argued that the warrantless draw of her blood for noncriminal OWI violated the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals rejected D's argument and affirmed. |
| State v. Bumper | Oct 4, 2001 | 01-0671 | Implied Consent, Refusal - D appealed an order revoking his operating privilege for failing to submit to chemical testing as required under Wis. Stat. §343.305. D contended that his response when the arresting officer asked him to submit to an evidentiary chemical test of his breath was not a refusal, and that he should have been instructed by the officer that he had to answer either "yes" or "no" to the request, before his response was deemed a refusal. The Court of Appeals concludes that D's conduct and lack of an affirmative response was properly deemed a refusal. Accordingly, it affirmed the order revoking his driving privilege. |
| State v. Lundgren | Oct 2, 2001 | 01-1176-CR | Reasonable Suspicion - D appealed his judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, third offense, contrary to Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a). D argued that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him. Because there was reasonable suspicion, the Court of Appeals affirmed. |
| City of Madison v. Jawara | Sept 27, 2001 | 01-0621 | Factual Findings, Pro Se Briefs - D appealed a judgment convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant (OMVWI). The precise nature of D's claim of error could not be ascertained from his brief, but it appeared that D was challenging the trial court's factual finding, based on credibility determinations, that D was in fact driving the vehicle at the time of the offense. After reviewing the transcript of the court trial in circuit court, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court's finding that D committed the offense of OMVWI was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, it affirmed the appealed judgment. |
| State v. Merkes | Sept 27, 2001 | 01-1474-CR | Probable Cause - D appealed a judgment of conviction for causing injury by operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant in violation of Wis. Stat. §346.63(2)(a). She contended the trial court erred in concluding that the officer had probable cause to arrest her. The Court of Appeals concluded the officer did have probable cause, and therefore affirmed. |
| State v. Williams | Sept 25, 2001 | 01-0463-CR, 01-0464-CR | Seizure - The State appealed orders suppressing evidence derived from an automobile search. A state trooper stopped D for speeding and, after issuing a warning ticket, questioned D and asked for permission to search the car. D consented. The issue was whether D was seized under the Fourth Amendment when he was questioned and consented to the search. The trial court held that D had been seized and, as a result, his consent to search was invalid. The Court of Appeals agreed and affirmed. |
| State v. Shelton | Sept 20, 2001 | 01-1214-CR | Probable Cause - D appealed a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration in violation of Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(b), fourth offense. He contended the trial court erred in concluding that the officer had probable cause to arrest him. The Court of Appeals concluded that the officer did have probable cause and therefore affirmed. |
| State v. Allen | Sept 19, 2001 | 01-0381-FT | Discovery - D sought reversal of the trial court's order granting a blanket protective order barring any discovery before a refusal hearing. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order because there were no facts of record upon which the trial court could have based a rational exercise of its discretion. |
| City of Stevens Point v. Wirtz | Sept 13, 2001 | 01-1020-FT | Ex Post Facto, No Contest Plea - D appealed from a jury verdict finding him guilty under Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a) for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant. D contended on appeal that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his motion for a mistrial after the prosecutor for the City of Stevens Point (City) elicited testimony from the arresting officer that D refused to answer questions after he was read his Miranda rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed. |
| State v. Sekula | Sept 12, 2001 | 01-0684-CR | Ineffective Assistant of Counsel, Reasonable Suspicion - D appealed from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant (OWI) in violation of Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a), and from an order denying her motion for an evidentiary hearing on whether her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a pretrial motion to suppress evidence based upon an illegal stop. The Court of Appeals concluded that D was not denied a fair trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel and affirmed the judgment and the order. |
| State v. Smaxwell | Sept 12, 2001 | 01-0709-CR | Warrantless Search of Garage, Consent, Exigent Circumstances - D appealed from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, third offense. D argued that there was neither consent nor exigent circumstances to justify the warrantless search of his garage prior to his arrest. D also argued that the warrantless blood draw without his consent was illegal. The Court of Appeals disagreed on both issues and affirmed. |
| State v. Scott | Sept 11, 2001 | 00-3431-CR | Criminal Penalties Study Committee's Recommendations, Exercise of Discretion, 8th Amendment - D appealed from a judgment of conviction and sentence after he pled guilty to operating a vehicle without the owner's consent, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 943.23(3) (1999-2000). He also appealed from an order denying his postconviction motion to modify his sentence. D claimed: (1) the trial court erred when it determined that the Criminal Penalties Study Committee's proposal to reclassify the crime of operating a vehicle without the owner's consent was not a new factor; (2) the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it imposed what he claims was an unduly harsh and disproportionate sentence; and (3) the sentence imposed by the trial court violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution because it is disproportionate to the gravity of the offense. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. |
| State v. Prill | Sept 6, 2001 | 01-1415-CR | Proof of Prior Convictions - D pled no contest to the charge of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, third offense, contrary to Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a). The circuit court sentenced D as a third-time offender under Wis. Stat. §346.65(2)(c), which establishes the repeater penalties for violations of §346.63(1). The sole issue on appeal was whether the State adequately proved the prior convictions that triggered application of the enhanced penalties. The Court of Appeals concluded that the record in this case was sufficient to establish competent proof of D's two prior convictions, and therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction and the order denying postconviction relief. |
| State v. Reinhard | Sept 5, 2001 | 01-0767-CR |
Guilty-Plea-Waiver - A guilty-plea-waiver rule blocked D's challenge to the retroactive application of Wis. Stat. §346.65(2)(b) that resulted in D being charged with a second offense operating while under the influence of an intoxicant (OWI). Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed D's conviction. |
| State v. Lemke | Aug 29, 2001 | 01-0584-CR | Reasonable Suspicion - D appealed from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) pursuant to Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a). D contended that the investigative stop of his vehicle was illegal under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), and Wis. Stat. §968.24. The totality of circumstances observed by the arresting officer constituted reasonable suspicion under Wis. Stat. §968.24. As such, the officer's temporary detention of D was valid, and the evidence obtained as a result thereof was admissible. The Court of Appeals thus upheld the trial court's ruling denying the motion to suppress, and affirmed the judgment of conviction. |
| State v. Yench | Aug 29, 2001 | 01-0578-CR | Implied Consent, Reasonable Diligence - D appealed from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), second offense, pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 346.63(1)(a) and 346.65(2)(b). D pled guilty to the charge following the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence of a blood test obtained pursuant to the Implied Consent Law. On appeal, D contended that the arresting officer did not exercise "reasonable diligence" to accommodate his request for the police department's alternate test under the Implied Consent Law as required by State v. Renard, 123 Wis. 2d 458, 367 N.W.2d 237 (Ct. App. 1985). The Court of Appeals disagreed and therefore affirmed. |
| State v. Highman | Aug 23, 2001 | 01-0733-CR, 01-0734-CR, 01-0733-CR | Speedy Trial - D appealed two judgments of conviction, one for operating a motor vehicle after revocation, fifth offense, and one for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, sixth offense, and the orders denying his motions for postconviction relief. He contended that his right to a speedy trial was violated, and he therefore was entitled to a reversal of the judgments of conviction and dismissal of the charges. The Court of Appeals concluded the trial court correctly decided his right to a speedy trial was not violated, and therefore affirmed. |
| State v. Dickey | Aug 22, 2001 | 01-0421-CR | Blood Test, Implied Consent - D appealed his judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration. D argued that the trial court erred when it allowed blood test results to be admitted into evidence. D specifically contended there is no authority under the Implied Consent Law for a forcible blood withdrawal and that no evidence was presented that the blood withdrawal was completed by a person authorized to do so under Wis. Stat. §343.305(5)(b). The Court of Appeals agreed that there was no evidence presented that the blood withdrawal complied with the requirements of § 343.305(5)(b). It therefore reversed the judgment of conviction and remanded the matter to the trial court to allow the State to demonstrate compliance with § 343.305(5)(b). If compliance cannot be shown, a new trial is ordered at which the results of the blood test must be suppressed. |
| State v. Brycki | Aug 21, 2001 | 00-2900/01-031900-2900 & 01-0319-CR | Blood Test, Reasonable Suspicion - D appealed from a judgment entered on a jury verdict convicting him of driving with a prohibited blood-alcohol concentration, and from the trial court's order revoking his privilege to drive an automobile for two years as a consequence of D's refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test of his breath. He raised the following claims of trial-court error: 1) that the officer who stopped D while D was driving did so unlawfully, and thus the trial court should have dismissed the charges against him; 2) that the results of the tests done on D's blood should have been excluded because the State allegedly did not fully comply with D's right to discovery; 3) that the trial court should not have received into evidence the results of the tests done on D's blood because the State did not establish that the person who drew D's blood was authorized to do so; and 4) that the trial court should not have received into evidence the results of the tests done on D's blood because there was an insufficient chain of custody for the blood. The Court of Appeals affirmed. |
| State v. Fetzner | Aug 21, 2001 | 01-0928-CR | Reasonable Suspicion, Citizen Informant - D appealed his judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, second offense, contrary to Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a). He argued that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence because the citizen informant's tip did not give the police reasonable suspicion to stop D. The Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed the conviction. |
| City of Eau Claire v. Langenfeld | Aug 21, 2001 | 01-0470-FT | Reasonable Suspicion - D appealed her conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant (OWI). The sole issue on appeal was whether the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion to detain D in order to perform field sobriety tests and other further investigation prior to arresting her for OWI. The Court of Appeals concluded that because the arresting officer had a reasonable basis to suspect that D had been operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, the trial court correctly denied her motion to suppress. The conviction was thus affirmed. |
| State v. Marquardt | Aug 21, 2001 | 01-0065-CR | Good-Faith Warrant Exception, Probable Cause, Federal v. Wis. Exception to the Warrant Clause - In this interlocutory appeal, D appealed from an order (1) denying his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant for his home; (2) denying his request for a Franks hearing; and (3) denying his motion to suppress evidence from a warrantless search of his vehicle. The Court of Appeals concluded first that there was insufficient probable cause to justify the search warrant for D's home. Because the Supreme Court recently adopted the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, the Court of Appeals reversed that portion of the court's order and remands for a determination of whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies in this case. The Court also concluded that there was insufficient probable cause to support the search warrant. Finally, the Court found that the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment search warrant requirement applied to the warrantless search of D's vehicle. Thus, it affirmed that portion of the trial court's order denying suppression of evidence from D's vehicle on warrantless search grounds. |
| State v. Posius | Aug 21, 2001 | 01-0619-CR | Warrantless Entry of Home, Exigent Circumstances - D appealed from a judgment convicting him of operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol content (PAC), second offense, contrary to Wis. Stat. 346.63(1)(b). He argued that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence seized subsequent to the police illegally entering his residence without a warrant. The Court of Appeals agreed with D and, therefore, reversed the judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. |
| State v. Senn | Aug 21, 2001 | 01-0054-CR | Sufficiency of Evidence, Uncorroborated Prior Inconsistent Statement of a Witness - D appealed his judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, third offense, contrary to Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a). D argued that: (1) the trial court erred by denying D's motion to dismiss at the conclusion of the State's case; and (2)the evidence presented at trial was insufficient for the jury to find D guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed the conviction. |
| County of Dunn v. Trainor | Aug 21, 2001 | 01-0474 | Probable
Cause - appealed from a judgment convicting him of operating a
motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), contrary to Wis. Stat.
§346.63(1)(a). The Circuit Court found D guilty of these charges after it
denied his motion to suppress evidence gathered by police after his arrest. The sole issue on appeal was whether the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest D for OWI. Because the evidence was sufficient to support the necessary probable cause to arrest D for OWI, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. |
| State v. Nehring | Aug 16, 2001 | 01-0929 | Probable Cause - D appealed an order, entered after a refusal hearing under Wisconsin's implied consent law, which revoked his driver's operating privileges for one year. D was arrested on August 11, 2000, after he drove his truck into a tree located near a parking area behind two residential duplexes. At the time of his arrest, D admitted that he had been drinking, but he refused to take a chemical test. The only issue contested on appeal was whether the arresting officer had probable cause to believe that D had committed the offense of operating a motor vehicle on a public highway while intoxicated. A reasonable police officer could have concluded from the totality of the circumstances known at the time of the arrest that D probably had violated Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court's order. |
| State v. Niebuhr | Aug 16, 2001 | 01-0243 | Probable Cause - D appealed from a court order revoking his driving privileges for refusal to submit to a breath test. The sole issue on appeal was whether the officer had probable cause to arrest D for driving under the influence of an intoxicant. The Court of Appeals found probable cause and affirmed. |
| State v. Skibba | Aug 16, 2001 | 00-3118-CR, 00-3119-CR | Sufficiency of Evidence - D appealed from a series of judgments convicting him of three counts of causing bodily injury by operation of a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicants and three counts of failing to perform a duty upon striking an occupied motor vehicle. He claimed the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the convictions. The Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed for the reasons discussed below. |
| State v. Kress | Aug 8, 2001 | 01-0441-CR | Ex Post Facto, No Contest Plea - D contended that the State's attempt to punish him criminally for his second operating while intoxicated (OWI) arrest within hours of his first drunk driving arrest contravenes the ex post facto provision of the federal constitution. The Court of Appeals did not reach D's constitutional challenge because his plea of no contest to the second offense waived any constitutional violations that may have occurred before his plea; therefore, the convictions were affirmed. |
| State v. Smith-Herzog | Aug 8, 2001 | 01-0121-CR | Inconsistent Jury Verdict, Coercion - The State of Wisconsin appealed from an order of the Circuit Court dismissing with prejudice a charge of operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol content. The State contended that the verdict rendered by the jury and a note appended to the verdict form combine to make up an inconsistent verdict. Given that the circuit judge resolved the factual elements of the affirmative coercion defense against the State, The Court of Appeals concluded that double jeopardy precluded an appeal; therefore, it dismissed the State's appeal. |
| State v. Baer | Aug 1, 2001 | 01-0423-CR | Reasonable Suspicion, Anonymous Tip- The State of Wisconsin appealed from an order suppressing all the evidence gathered after an investigative traffic stop following an anonymous cell phone call and dismissing the complaint against D. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of acquittal and the order of the trial court because it concluded that, under the tip provided, reasonable suspicion required an investigative stop. |
| State v. Wodenjak | Aug 1, 2001 | 00-3419-CR | Implied Consent - D appealed from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) pursuant to Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a) (1999-2000). D was convicted as a fourth-time repeat offender pursuant to § 346.63(2)(d). D challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress the results of a blood test. D argued that there was no exigency under the Fourth Amendment permitting the police to perform a blood test because he had previously offered to submit to a breath test. The Court rejected D's argument and affirms the judgment of conviction. Rec. For Publication |
| State v. Cutsforth | July 31, 2001 | 01-0237-CR | Warrantless Entry, Exigent Circumstances - D appealed a judgment convicting him of operating while intoxicated, second offense, contrary to Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a). He also appealed an order denying post-conviction relief. He contended that his warrantless arrest violated his Fourth Amendment rights, requiring the suppression of all evidence taken incident to the unlawful arrest. He contended that no exigent circumstances allowed the police to enter his home to arrest him. The Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed. |
| State v. Sisk | July 31, 2001 | 00-2614-CR | Reasonable Suspicion, Anonymous Informant - The State of Wisconsin appealed from the trial court order dismissing the charge of possession of a firearm by a felon against D following a suppression motion hearing. The State argued that the trial court erred in viewing the informant's 9-1-1 call in this case as an anonymous tip and, therefore, in failing to correctly consider the totality of the circumstances. Because the 9-1-1 caller in this case gave what he said was his name, the Court of Appeals agreed with the State. Accordingly, it reversed. Rec. For Publication |
| State v. Dahl | July 26, 2001 | 01-0489-CR | Implied Consent - D appealed from a judgment of conviction and from an order denying his motion to suppress evidence. D contended that Wis. Stat. §343.305, Wisconsin's Implied Consent Law, was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that testing blood drawn in compliance with the Implied Consent Law was a separate search, requiring a warrant. The Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed. |
| State v. Wakershauser | July 26, 2001 | 01-0183-CR | Collaterally Attack of Prior Conviction - D appealed a judgment of conviction and sentence for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) as a fourth offense, in violation of Wis. Stat. §346.63(1). On appeal, he originally challenged the validity of both his second and third prior convictions, claiming that he did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his right to counsel with respect to the second conviction and did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive other constitutional rights with respect to both convictions. However, he later conceded, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that under State v. Hahn, 2000 WI 118, 238 Wis. 2d 889, 618 N.W.2d 528, he may collaterally attack a prior conviction in a subsequent criminal case only on the basis of a denial of his constitutional right to assistance by counsel. Therefore, the Court addressed only his challenge on this basis to his second prior conviction. The Court of Appeals concluded D validly waived his right to counsel with respect to that conviction. The decision was affirmed. |
| State v. Kozlowski | July 24, 2001 | 01-0060-CR | Exercise of Discretion, Exclusion of Priors - D appealed from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant or other drug, as a third offense, contrary to Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a) (1999-2000). D claimed that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it denied his motion to exclude a prior OWI conviction. Because the trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it denied the motion to exclude the prior conviction, the Court of Appeals affirmed. |
| Stephenson v. Universal Metrics, Inc [See Also] | July 24, 2001 | 00-194700-1947 | Dram Shop Liability/ Designated Drivers, Liability of Employers - Plaintiff individually and as personal representative of the estate of his wife Kathy M. Stephenson, and Sentry Insurance and its insured John H. Kreuser appealed from a judgment that dismissed all claims against Universal Metrics, Inc., and its insurance carrier West American Insurance Company. The two issues on this appeal were: (1) The liability of Universal Metrics and West American Insurance for Kreuser's alleged breach of an assumed duty to drive Devine home. (2) The liability of Universal Metrics for the actions of Devine under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The Court of Appeals found that the liability of Universal Metrics and West American as to issue 1 was a question of fact inappropriate for summary judgment. As to issue 2, the Court of Appeals found that Universal Metrics was not liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for Devine's actions. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. Rec. For Publication |
| State v. Maxon | July 18, 2001 | 00-2863 | Sufficiency of Evidence, Probable Cause, Foundation for the introduction of Breathalyzer Test - D appealed his trial court conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant. He presented three issues: First, he claimed that there was not probable cause to stop and arrest him. Second, he asserted that there was not a sufficient foundation for the introduction of the breathalyzer test. Third, he contended that there was not sufficient evidence for a jury to convict him. The Court of Appeals disagreed on all of these issues and affirmed. |
| State v. Miller | July 18, 2001 | 01-0546-CR | Implied Consent - D appealed from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration (OWPAC) pursuant to Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(b). D challenged the denial of his motion to suppress the results of a chemical test of his blood. Specifically, D contended that the police were required to obtain a search warrant before submitting his blood sample for testing. The Court of Appeals rejected D's argument and affirmed the judgment of conviction. |
| State v. Senecal | July 18, 2001 | 00-3441 | Implied Consent - D appealed from an order revoking his driving privileges based upon the trial court's determination that D improperly refused to submit to a chemical test under the Implied Consent Law, Wis. Stat. §343.305.2 D argued that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss when the State was unprepared to proceed at a previously scheduled refusal hearing. Instead, the Court granted the State's motion to adjourn the hearing. The Court agreed with D that the trial court did not adequately explain its reasons for granting the adjournment. It therefore conditionally reversed the order and remanded for the trial court to further address the adjournment request. |
| Waukesha v. Squire | July 18, 2001 | 01-0249 | Reasonable Suspicion - D appealed from a judgment of conviction for operating while intoxicated, first offense, in violation of Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a). He contended that the arresting officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle, and therefore the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court's ruling was correct, and therefore it affirmed. |
| State v. Rumlow | July 17, 2001 | 00-3410-CR | Sufficiency of Complaint, Probable Cause, Foundation for the introduction of Breathalyzer Test - D appealed a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, contrary to Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a). He claimed that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to administer a preliminary breath test. D thus contended that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence. The Court of Appeals concluded that the officer had a sufficient legal basis to administer a preliminary breath test and therefore affirmed the judgment. |
| State v. Staples | July 17, 2001 | 00-1606-CR | Sufficiency of Complaint, Probable Cause - D appealed pro se from a judgment entered after he pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (cocaine), contrary to Wis. Stat. §961.41(1m)(cm)1 (1997-98). D claimed that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence. Specifically, D argued that: (1) the citizen informant referred to in the complaint, does not exist; (2) the arresting officers' statements were inconsistent; and (3) the police officers did not have probable cause to stop or search him. Because D had waived the first two arguments, and because the stop and search were constitutionally permissible, the Court of Appeals affirmed. |
| Fort Atkinson v. Jonastate | June 28, 2001 | 01-0379 | Accuracy of Intoxilyzer 5000, Implied Consent - D appeals her conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol content (PAC) contrary to Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(b). She contends that the circuit court erred in refusing to suppress the results of her breath test because (1) the police interfered with her right to request an alternative test and (2) the Intoxilyzer 5000 used to test her breath was not entitled to a presumption of accuracy and reliability pursuant to Wis. Stat. §343.305(6)(b) because it used new software that affected the analytical process. The circuit court denied the motion to suppress, and the Court of Appeals affirms. |
| State v. Buzzell | June 28, 2001 | 01-0108-CR | Reasonable Suspicion - D appeals the judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant (OWI) contrary to Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a). He contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because, he asserts, the evidence was the result of an unlawful detention. The court concludes the officer had the reasonable suspicion required for a lawful detention, and therefore affirms. |
| State v. Arpke | June 27, 2001 | 01-0459-CR | Implied
Consent - D appeals from an order denying his motions challenging
the forcible withdrawal of his blood, the constitutionality of dual OWI/PAC
prosecution and the adequacy of the information provided to him pursuant
to the Implied Consent Law. Because the issues Arpke raises in this appeal
were decided in the State's favor in State v. Thorstad, 2000 WI App 199, 238 Wis. 2d 666, 618 N.W.2d 240, review denied, 239 Wis. 2d 310, 619 N.W.2d 93 (Wis. Oct. 17, 2000) (No. 99-1765-CR), as Arpke concedes, the Court of Appeals affirms the order. |
| State v. Mumm | June 20, 2001 | 00-3448 | Implied Consent - D appeals from the denial of his suppression motions and his conviction of operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration (BAC), second offense, contrary to Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(b). He contends that the illegal seizure of his blood sample and the analysis of that sample required suppression of the BAC test results. The court disagrees and affirms the order and the conviction. |
| State v. Rosenberg | June 20, 2001 | 00-1785-CR | Collateral Attack of Prior Convictions, Jurisdiction of Arresting Officer - D has appealed from judgments convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), sixth offense, in violation of Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a) (1999-2000), and of bail jumping in violation of Wis. Stat. §946.49(1)(a).D contends that the trial court erred when it permitted two prior municipal court OWI convictions to be considered in enhancing his sentence for the current OWI offense. D also contends that the judgments must be reversed because the arresting officer was outside his jurisdiction when he made the traffic stop that led to D's convictions. The court affirms the judgments. |
| City of Brookfield v. Ulmen | June 13, 2001 | 01-0444-FT | Reasonable Suspicion -The City of Brookfield appeals from an order dismissing two uniform traffic citations that charged D with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) and operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration (PAC) respectively. The dismissal order followed the trial court's ruling that the temporary detention of D's vehicle was not authorized under Wis. Stat. §968.24.The court disagrees with the trial court's ruling that the stop of D's vehicle was improper under §968.24. It reverses the order suppressing the evidence and dismissing the citations and remands the case for further proceedings. |
| State v. Martin | June 12, 2001 | 00-3013-CR | Reasonable Suspicion - D pled guilty to operating while under the influence of an intoxicant, second offense, contrary to Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a). D appeals his conviction, contending that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence. D claims that the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him and conduct an investigation. The court concludes that the officer had sufficient cause to temporarily detain D, and therefore affirms the trial court's order denying D's motion to suppress and the judgment of conviction. |
| State v. Roesing | June 12, 2001 | 00-3180-CR | Exercise of Discretion: HGN, NHTSA Student Manual, Jury Knowledge of Miranda Warnings - D appeals from a judgment of conviction after a jury found her guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant or other drug contrary to Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a) (1999-2000). D claims that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it: (1)denied the defendant's motion in limine to exclude HGN (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus) test evidence; (2) denied the defendant's request to use the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration student manual to impeach the officer's testimony; and (3) denied the defendant's motion for a mistrial when the State told the jury that D was given her Miranda rights. Because the trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it denied the defendant's motion in limine to exclude the HGN test, or when it denied the defendant's request to use the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration student manual to impeach the officer's testimony, or when it denied the motion for a mistrial, the court affirms. |
| State v. Burks | June 12, 2001 | 00-3558-CR | Implied Consent - D appeals her judgment of conviction for operating while under the influence of an intoxicant, third offense, contrary to Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a). D argues that the circuit court erred by denying her motion to suppress the results of a blood test when the blood was drawn without her consent as a search incident to an arrest and after she had refused the test. D contends that the implied consent statute creates procedural and substantive due process rights and supplies the exclusive remedy for a defendant's refusal to submit to a chemical test to determine blood alcohol content. The Court of Appeals disagrees and affirms the conviction. |
| Bammert v. Don's SuperValu, Inc. | June 12, 2001 | 00-2473 | Employment (Wrongful Dismissal) P appeals a judgment dismissing her action for wrongful discharge, claiming that her termination from employment violates public policy. P alleges that she was fired because her husband, a police officer, participated in her employer's wife's arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol. Because Wisconsin is an employment- at-will state and P does not present circumstances that meet an exception to this rule, the dismissal is affirmed. |
| State v. Stormer | May 31, 2001 | 00-3350-CR | Sentencing - D was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, third offense, contrary to Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a) (OWI). D received a sentence of sixty days in jail with Huber privileges, license revocation for thirty months, and a forfeiture of $1,346.50. The sole issue on appeal is whether the State proved at sentencing the prior convictions requisite to the imposition of a sentence under Wis. Stat. §346.65(2)(c), which increases the penalty for a person with a total of three convictions. The court conclude the State did, and therefore it affirms. |
| State v. Messenger | May 31, 2001 | 00-1420-CR | Probable Cause, Miranda Warnings, Jury Instruction - D appeals her conviction for operating under the influence, second offense, with a minor passenger under the age of sixteen in the motor vehicle. She contends that there was no probable cause for her arrest, that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress statements she made while detained by police officers, and that the jury instruction used at her trial contained a misstatement of the law. The trial court's judgment is affirmed. |
| State v. Kingsfield | May 31, 2001 | 00-3150-CR | Sufficiency of Evidence, Definition of "Operating" - D appeals his convictions for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration. D's argument on appeal is that first, there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the charged offenses, and second, that the element of operating a motor vehicle on a highway was not satisfied. The court affirms as to both issues. |
| State v. Hernandez | May 31, 2001 | 00-2691-CR | Reasonable Suspicion - D appeals a judgment convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant (OMVWI), contrary to Wis. Stat. §346.63(1). D contends that the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress evidence gathered after an allegedly illegal traffic stop. The court concludes, contrary to D's assertion, that the arresting police officer had a reasonable suspicion that D was engaging in unlawful activity, thereby justifying an investigatory detention. The court affirms D's conviction. |
| State v. Flunker | May 31, 2001 | 00-1919-CR | Reasonable Suspicion - These appeals arise out of a combined refusal and suppression hearing in an OMVWI prosecution. The trial court concluded that the police officer who stopped and then arrested D did not have a reasonable suspicion that D was engaging in illegal activity. Accordingly, it granted D's motion to suppress evidence of his intoxicated driving. The court also concluded that because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion, D was not lawfully placed under arrest. See Wis. Stat. §343.305(9)(a)5 (1997-1998). The trial court therefore dismissed D's "refusal issue." The appellate court concludes that under the circumstances, a police officer would have had a reasonable suspicion that D was engaging in unlawful activity. It therefore reverses the part of the trial court's order dismissing the "refusal issue" and remand for further proceedings, with instructions to address the §343.305(9)(a)5 issues in light of this opinion. It also reverses the part of the trial court's order suppressing evidence, and remands the case. |
| State v. Farrell | May 31, 2001 | 01-0205-CR | Implied Consent - D appeals his conviction of OMVWI. He argues that the circuit court erred in refusing to suppress the results of his blood test. He concludes the circuit court was in error because a breath test was available, and therefore the blood test was an unreasonable search and seizure. The court concludes that the issue presented is controlled by State v. Thorstad, 2000 WI App 199, 238 Wis.2d 666, 618 N.W.2d 240, and additionally, D consented to his blood being drawn. Accordingly, the court affirms the judgment of the circuit court. |
| State v. Dittberner | May 31, 2001 | 00-3146 | Probable Cause, Implied Consent - D appeals from an order revoking his operating privileges for refusing to submit to a test of his blood, pursuant to Wis. Stat. §343.305.2 He asserts that the trial court erred by revoking his operating privileges because the State failed to prove that an arresting officer had probable cause to arrest him for OMVWI. D also argues that he cannot be considered to have refused a chemical test because the State failed to ask him to submit to a test. The court concludes that sufficient evidence existed, permitting the officer to arrest D. The court further concludes that the evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that D refused a chemical test after the arresting officer read the "Informing the Accused" form. The judgment is affirmed. |
| State v. Alby | May 30, 2001 | 00-3144-CR | Involuntary Intoxication - D appeals his conviction for operating while intoxicated following a trial before the court. At trial, he conceded that he was driving while intoxicated, but raised the affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication as the means by which he could be relieved of responsibility for his crime. The trial court held that D had not met his initial burden of establishing the elements of that defense and found him guilty. D appeals that ruling. The ruling is affirmed. |
| State v. Storlie | May 24, 2001 | 00-1315-CR | Jury Instruction - D appeals a judgment convicting him of injury by intoxicated use of a vehicle, contrary to Wis. Stat. §940.25(1)(a) (1999-2000). D drove a motor vehicle involved in an accident which resulted in injuries to his passenger. At trial, D argued to the jury that the passenger's assault on him while driving, and not his own intoxication or operation of the vehicle, caused the passenger's injuries. D claims the trial court deprived him of his defense by instructing the jury on the affirmative defense provided under §940.25(2). We conclude the trial court did not err in instructing the jury because:(1)the instructions accurately stated the law, and the trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in giving them; and (2)there is not a reasonable likelihood that the jury was misled and applied the instructions in an unconstitutional manner. The court rejects D's claim of error and affirms the judgment. |
| Waukesha County v. Meinhardt | May 23, 2001 | 01-0246-FT | Probable Cause - D appeals from an order of the circuit court denying his motion to dismiss an operating while intoxicated citation against him. D was stopped after flashing his high beams at a deputy sheriff's car. D argues that the deputy sheriff had no probable cause to stop him and thus the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals agrees and reverses the order of the trial court. |
| State v. Robinson | May 22, 2001 | 00-3270-CR | Search and Seizure - D appeals from a judgment entered on a guilty plea convicting him of unlawfully possessing a concealed weapon. See Wis. Stat. § 941.23. He claims that the trial court erred in not holding illegal the search of the unlocked glove compartment of his car after police stopped him. The decision is affirmed. |
| Stephenson v. Universal Metrics, Inc. [See Also] | May 15, 2001 | 00-1397 | Dram
Shop Liability/ Designated Drivers - D and his insurer, appeal from the nonfinal circuit court order denying their motion for
summary judgment. D argues that the court erred in concluding that Wis.
Stat. §125.035(2) (1997-98), which D characterizes as "Wisconsin's
Liquor Liability Immunity Statute," did not immunize him from
liability for his alleged conduct in failing to drive another adult home
after stating that he would do so.
The Court of Appeals concludes that the circuit court correctly determined that D's alleged conduct fell outside the parameters of the immunity granted under Wis. Stat. §125.035(2). The court further concludes that D's alleged conduct is encompassed by the standards declared in Restatement (Second) of Torts §324A (1965), adopted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and most recently reiterated in Gritzner v. Michael R., 2000 WI 68, 235 Wis.2d 781, 611 N.W.2d 906. the denial of summary judgment is affirmed. |
| State v. Winters | May 10, 2001 | 00-3151 | Reasonable Suspicion - The State of Wisconsin appeals an order of the trial court granting D's motion to suppress all evidence obtained as the result of a stop of her vehicle. The State contends the trial court erroneously concluded the police officer did not have the requisite reasonable suspicion for the stop. The Court of Appeals conclude the trial court did not err and therefore affirms. |
| State v. Shipler | May 10, 2001 | 00-1738-CR | Sentencing - The State appeals a judgment convicting D of OMVWI, third offense, with a minor in the vehicle, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§346.63(1)(a), 346.65(2)(c) and (f) (1999-2000). The trial court sentenced D to 120 days of home detention to be served on electronic monitoring, pursuant to Wis. Stat. §973.03(4)(a). The State claims the trial court erred in not sentencing D to a minimum term of imprisonment in the county jail, as required by §346.65(2)(c). The Court of Appeals finds that trial court did not err, and affirms the judgment and the sentence imposed. |
| State v. Mosley | May 10, 2001 | 00-1741-CR | Search and Seizure - D appeals from a judgment convicting him of possessing heroin with intent to deliver it, within 1000 feet of a park. The issue is whether the trial court properly denied his motion to suppress the evidence of his crime found in D's shoe during a Terry search. The court affirms. |
| State v. Eggimann | May 10, 2001 | 00-0692 | Implied Consent: "Notice of Intent to Revoke" Requirements - D appeals from an order of the circuit court denying his motion to vacate a refusal order. He argues that the circuit court erroneously held that the notice of intent to revoke his operating privileges adequately contained information required by Wis. Stat. §343.305(9)(a) (1997-98). Based on new precedent, it is now clear that the notice was defective. Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court was erroneous, and the issue of prejudice must be addressed by the circuit court. The Court of Appeals therefore reverses the circuit court's order. |
| State v. Werner | May 9, 2001 | 00-3159-CR | Implied Consent - D appeals from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, second offense, and an order denying his motion to suppress chemical test evidence. D argues that the chemical test evidence should have been suppressed because he was denied a fundamentally fair opportunity to seek an alternative chemical test. The Court of Appeals disagrees and affirms the judgment and the order. |
| State v. Rieckhoff | May, 9, 2001 | 00-2929-CR | Implied Consent - D appeals from a judgment of conviction and an order denying his motion to suppress evidence of the results of a blood test. Because the issues D raises in this appeal were decided in the State's favor in State v. Thorstad, 2000 WI App 199, 238 Wis. 2d 666, 618N.W.2d 240, review denied, 239 Wis. 2d 310, 619 N.W.2d 93 (Wis. Oct. 17, 2000) (No. 99-1765-CR), The Court of Appeals affirms the judgment of conviction and the order. |
| State v. Martinez | May 9, 2001 | 00-2858-CR | Implied Consent - D challenges an order denying his motion to suppress the results of a blood test showing a 0.142% blood alcohol concentration, nearly twice the legal limit. He claims that additional information supplied by the arresting officer concerning the possibility that his blood would be forcibly withdrawn if he did not consent to a blood test tainted his right to make an informed choice about whether to comply with the implied consent law. D reasons that his choice to comply was not voluntary since the officer informed him that regardless of his decision, a blood sample would be forcibly withdrawn. Affirming the decision, the Court of Appeals finds that the oversupply of information to D did not affect his ability to decide whether to comply with the implied consent law. |
| State v.Coley | May 9, 2001 | 00-2057-CR | Reasonable Suspicion - In this appeal, the court analyzes whether a totally anonymous tip has sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop. While the tip does contain an assertion of criminal activity, it lacks any verifiable information that would permit the testing of the informant's basis of knowledge or credibility. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reverses. |
| State v. Pineda | Apr 26, 2001 | 00-1146-CR | Probable Cause - D appeals a judgment of conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver within 1,000 feet of a county park. He argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a police officer's warrantless search of his automobile before he was placed under arrest. Because the officer had probable cause to arrest Pineda for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OMVWI) at the time of the search, the Court of Appeals concludes that the evidence of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver was obtained during a lawful search incident to arrest. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. |
| State v.Fritz | Apr 26, 2001 | 00-2528-CR | Community Caretaker Exception - D appeals a judgment of conviction for OMVWI in violation of Wis. Stat. §346.63(1) (1997-98). The issue on appeal is whether the arresting officer's detention of D was justified as a community caretaker activity. The Court of Appeals concludes it was and the detention was therefore not a violation of the Fourth. The judgment is affirmed. |
| Columbia County v. Schleicher | Apr 26, 2001 | 01-0020-FT | Prior No Contest Plea - D appeals from a judgment convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OMVWI), first offense. He asserts that the police officer who arrested him continued questioning him after he asked for counsel, and that statements he made should therefore be suppressed. He also asserts that the officer did not have probable cause to arrest him, thus also requiring that the statements and other evidence be suppressed. Additionally, he contends that the trial court erred by permitting the results of a preliminary breath test to "come in." The Court of Appeals conclude that because D pleaded no contest to the charge of OMVWI, he has waived his defenses to the charge of OMVWI; the decision is affirmed. |
| State v. Soward | Apr 25, 2001 | 00-1961-CR | Search and Seizure - D appeals from a judgment of conviction for possession of cocaine contrary to Wis. Stat. §961.41(3g)(c) (1999-2000). D argues that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress. He contends that the police obtained drugs from his vehicle in violation of his Fourth Amendment protection against unwarranted search and seizure. The Court of Appeals disagrees. The court holds that the trial court did not err when it found that D's vehicle was properly stopped under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Additionally, the trial court did not err when it found that the search of D's vehicle was proper. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed. |
| State v. Long | Apr 25, 2001 | 00-2898-CR | Implied Consent - D appeals from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated pursuant to Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a). D challenges the warrantless draw of his blood following his arrest. D acknowledges that State v. Thorstad, 2000 WI App 199, 238 Wis. 2d 666, 618 N.W.2d 240, review denied, 2000 WI 121, 239 Wis. 2d 310, 619 N.W.2d 93 (Wis. Oct. 17, 2000) (No. 99-1765-CR), has previously decided this issue against him. Therefore, D takes this appeal only to preserve the issue since, as of the writing of his brief, a writ of certiorari in Thorstad was pending before the United States Supreme Court. We are bound by Thorstad. See Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 189-90, 560 N.W.2d 246 (1997). |
| State v. Traeder | Apr 24, 2001 | 00-2647 | Jury Selection - A jury convicted D of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, contrary to Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a). The sole issue is whether the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion during voir dire of the prospective jurors by refusing to allow D to ask questions of individual jurors unless it was to follow up on a general question. The court is satisfied that the trial court properly exercised its discretion. The judgment of conviction is therefore affirmed. |
| State v. Skibinski | Apr 24, 2001 | 00-1278-CR | Sentencing - D appeals from two judgments entered after he pled guilty to operating a vehicle while intoxicated, second and third offenses, contrary to Wis. Stat. §346.63(1) (1997-98). D claims the trial court erred when it interpreted the penalty statutes found in Wis. Stat. §§343.307 and 346.65 to permit the trial court to utilize the penalties prescribed for a third offense OWI when it sentenced D on the second and third offenses. Because the trial court erred in its interpretation of the statutes when it sentenced D, the Court of Appeals reverses both judgments and remands the matter for resentencing consistent with this opinion. Rec. for Publication. |
| State v. Hintz | Apr 18, 2001 | 00-1900-CR | Reasonable Suspicion - D appeals from an order denying his motion to suppress evidence of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OAWI) obtained during an investigative traffic stop and from the judgment of conviction. D contends that the stop was the result of an anonymous cell-phone tip to the Town of Oconomowoc Police Department that lacked credibility, and, therefore, no reasonable suspicion existed for the traffic stop. After the denial of the suppression motion, D pled guilty to a criminal charge of OAWI, repeater, contrary to Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a). Affirmed. |
| State v. Mickelson | Apr 17, 2001 | 00-2086-CR | Implied Consent, Jury Instruction - D appeals his judgment of conviction for homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle, contrary to Wis. Stat. §940.09(1)(a),1 and an order denying him postconviction relief. D argues that: (1) the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) evidence was privileged information, pursuant to Wis. Stat. §905.04(2), and should have been suppressed; (2) the jury was improperly instructed regarding evidence of intoxication or impaired ability to operate a motor vehicle; and (3) a new trial should be granted in the interests of justice. The Court of Appeals disagrees and affirms the conviction. |
| St. Croix County v. Cress | Apr 17, 2001 | 00-3295 | Reasonable
Suspicion v. Probable Cause - St. Croix County appeals an order
suppressing evidence based upon the trial court's determination that the
arresting officer lacked probable cause to believe Adam Cress committed
criminal damage to property. The County essentially argues that the trial court employed improper standards in making its determination. First, the court considered whether there was probable cause to believe Cress committed a crime, when the real issue was whether there was reasonable suspicion justifying a stop and investigation. Second, the court determined that there was no probable cause because of the officer's subjective determination that Cress did not intend to damage property. The Court of Appeals agrees with the County that the trial court should have employed a reasonable suspicion analysis and that under the undisputed evidence, the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a brief investigatory stop. The evidence resulting from the lawful stop should not have been suppressed. Therefore, the suppression order is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. |
| City of Mondovi v. Laehn | Apr 17, 2001 | 00-3336-FT | Jury Instruction - D appeals from a judgment convicting him of OMVWI. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred by directing the jury to find that the County had satisfied one of two necessary elements of the offense. Specifically, the trial court directed the jury to find that D operated a motor vehicle on a parking lot "held out to the public for use of their motor vehicles," as defined in Wis. Stat. §346.61. Because the evidence of this required element was so clear and convincing as to permit unbiased and impartial minds to come to but one conclusion, the trial court did not erroneously direct the jury. |
| State v. Mickelson | Apr 17, 2001 | 00-2086-CR | Blood Test Privilege - D appeals his judgment of conviction for homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle, contrary to an order denying him postconviction relief. He argues that: (1) the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) evidence was privileged information, pursuant to Wis.Stat. §905.04(2), and should have been suppressed; (2) the jury was improperly instructed regarding evidence of intoxication or impaired ability to operate a motor vehicle; and (3) a new trial should be granted in the interests of justice. The court holds that the application of Wis. Stat. ch. 905 at all stages of a criminal proceeding means that the privilege, and the homicide trial exception to that medical privilege, apply at all stages of a homicide proceeding. Accordingly, Mickelson had no reasonable expectation of privacy, and the conviction is affirmed. |
| State v. Brojanac | Apr 11, 2001 | 00-2330-CR | New Evidence - D appeals from an order denying her motion for a new trial on the charge of OMVWI, third offense. D claims that she is entitled to a new trial because newly discovered evidence of the temperature in Milwaukee on the night of her arrest contradicts police officers' testimony of the temperature in Oconomowoc. She argues the evidence goes to the credibility of the officer. The court affirms since D failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the newly discovered evidence created a reasonable probability of a different result if a new trial were conducted. |
| State v. Easton | Apr 5, 2001 | 00-2675-CR | Miranda Warning - D appeals a judgment convicting him of third offense OMVWI. He claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence grounded on an alleged Miranda violation. The court concludes that D was not subjected to a custodial interrogation at the time he made the statements he moved to suppress. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. |
| County of Winnebago v. Schmitz | Apr 4, 2001 | 00-2996-FT | Implied Consent - D was found guilty of first offense (subject to civil penalties) OMVWI, and operating a motor vehicle with a PAC. D contends that his blood sample was not obtained under the implied consent law, and, therefore, the statutory presumption of admissibility provided in Wis. Stat. §§343.305(5)(d) and 885.235, is not available. It is undisputed that the officer used the approved Informing the Accused form to provide D the required information, and the record does not support that D was misled or misinformed in regard to his rights under the implied consent law. The court affirms. |
| State v. Renzoni | Apr 4, 2001 | 00-2606-CR | Insufficient Probable Cause - D appeals from his conviction for causing injury while driving with a PAC. He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress all evidence or, in the alternative, the blood test, on grounds that his arrest was without probable cause. The only two pieces of evidence supporting the officer's decision to arrest were the accident and an odor of intoxicants on D's breath. After reviewing all the pertinent case law, the court agrees with D that such evidence was insufficient to support probable cause. The conviction is reversed and the case remanded with directions that all evidence resulting from the illegal arrest be suppressed. |
| State v. Madeiros | Mar 29, 2001 | 00-2600-CR | Blood Test/Double Jeopardy - D appeals his conviction for OMVWI. He argues that: (1) the circuit court erred in finding that he had consented to have blood drawn for a chemical test and (2) permitting his prosecution for both OMVWI and operating a vehicle with a PAC constitutes double jeopardy and a violation of his due process rights. Because D did not move to suppress the results of the blood test, the court concludes that he waived any objection to the test results by pleading guilty to OMVWI. Additionally, State v. Raddeman, 2000 WI App 190, 618 N.W.2d 258 held that prosecuting D for both OMVWI and operating with a PAC does not constitute double jeopardy or violate his due process rights. The judgment is affirmed. |
| City of Lake Mills v. Behlke | Mar 29, 2001 | 00-1547 | Intoxilyzer accuracy - D appeals the judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a PAC. He challenges the trial court's ruling that the intoxilyzer test results were entitled to the statutory presumption of reliability and accuracy, and its ruling permitting an expert to render an opinion on whether there were interferents involved in D's test results. The court finds the trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion and affirms the conviction. |
| State v. Duckart | Mar 29, 2001 | 00-3067-CR | PBT/Blood Test - D appeals his conviction for second offense OMVWI. He claims that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of his blood test because the police officer lacked probable cause to administer a PBT and because the blood test, itself, occurred as the result of an illegal search and seizure. The court concludes that the officer had probable cause to administer the PBT, and that administration of the blood test was not an illegal search and seizure. They thus affirm the judgment of the circuit court. |
| City of Oshkosh v. Sheets | Mar 28, 2001 | 00-2437 | Motion for Adjournment - D appeals from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a PAC and from orders denying his suppression motion and for an adjournment of the trial. While the court holds that the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion to stop D, they conclude that the motion for an adjournment was improperly denied because the trial court misused its discretion by failing to apply the required balancing test. They reverse the order denying the adjournment and the judgment, and order a new trial. |
| State v. Jones | Mar 22, 2001 | 00-2281-CR | Plea Colloquy - D appeals from a judgment convicting him of unlawfully driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated in violation of and an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. D claims that the trial court erred by determining that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. The court reverses, holding that the court's colloquy with D was insufficient to ascertain that D knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. |
| State v. Mahoney | Mar 15, 2001 | 00-2454-CR | Probable Cause - D appeals his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a PAC. He argues that he was denied his right to a speedy trial and that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because the arresting officer lacked probable cause to administer a PBT and to arrest him. D was not denied his right to a speedy trial because the delay was attributable largely to his actions and he was not prejudiced as a result. Both the officer the firefighter at the accident scene noticed an odor of intoxicants. D's eyes were bloodshot and watery, and D admitted that he had had two beers. Coupled with D's performance on the field sobriety tests, the court concludes that these facts constitute probable cause. |
| State v. Mathis | Mar 14, 2001 | 00-2609 | Implied Consent - D appeals from an order revoking his motor vehicle operating privilege arising from his refusal to submit to an implied consent blood alcohol test. He argues that the notice of intent to revoke his operating privilege failed to provide the information required by Wis. Stat. § 343.305(9)(a), thereby depriving the circuit court of personal jurisdiction to revoke his operating privilege. The court finds the request for a refusal hearing was untimely, in that it was not made within the required ten day period, and the circuit court lacked the competence to entertain his motion to dismiss. |
| State v. Niehoff | Mar 8, 2001 | 00-1975-CR | Reasonable Suspicion - D appeals a judgment convicting him 4th offense OMVWI. D claims that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because the police officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him. D’s truck stopped in the middle of the street, creating a reasonable suspicion on the officer's part that D had committed a traffic crime by violating Wis. Stat. § 346.54(1), which prohibits stopping a motor vehicle in the middle of the street. Based on this reasonable suspicion, the officer was justified in detaining D for further investigation. |
| State v. Schleck | Mar 1, 2001 | 00-1483-CR | Sentencing - D appeals his conviction for OMVWI, claiming that the circuit court erred in considering a 1995 OMVWI conviction for the purpose of sentencing because he successfully collaterally attacked the earlier conviction. The State cross-appeals, claiming that the circuit court erred in allowing the collateral attack on the 1995 conviction because D's waiver of right to counsel was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The court affirms because they conclude that the circuit court correctly exercised its discretion in sentencing D and correctly determined that D’s waiver of his right to counsel was not knowing or voluntary |
| State v. Petry | Feb 22, 2001 | 00-3018-CR | Double Jeopardy - D appeals the order denying her motion to dismiss the complaint charging her with OMVWI and operating a motor vehicle with a PAC. She contends the trial court erred because the double jeopardy clause bars this action since she was previously acquitted of causing the death of another by the operation or handling of a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant and with a prohibited alcohol concentration in violation of Wis. Stat. §940.09(1)(a) and (b). She also contends the State should be estopped from bringing this action. The court concludes that under the Blockburger3 "same elements test," the State is not barred from prosecuting D for violations of §346.63(1)(a) and (b), and neither judicial estoppel nor issue preclusion bars this action. |
| State v Savage | Feb 13, 2001 | 00-2337-CR | Reasonable Suspicion - D appeals a judgment entered after he pled no contest to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant. D contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress, claiming that he was illegally seized and questioned in his driveway and that the seizure was not justified under law enforcement's "community caretaker" function. Upon encountering D, the officer was in a position to observe signs that provoke a reasonable suspicion that he was operating under the influence of an intoxicant. The initial constitutional interference with D's liberty occurred at that point. This reasonable suspicion justified the seizure to conduct a further investigation. The trial court thus properly denied D's motion. |
| State v Coppens | Feb 13, 2001 | 00-2309, 00-2310 | Due Process - The State appeals an order dismissing three civil forfeitures against D. D was charged with failure to notify police of an accident, OWI, and operating a motor vehicle with a PAC. The State argues that it was denied due process when the circuit court denied, without a hearing, the State's motion to adjourn and when the circuit court failed to give notice of the time and date of the dismissal. Both the State and opposing counsel knew on June 20 that the case was going to be dismissed. The circuit court did not actually dismiss the case until nearly a week later, on June 27. The State did not appear for trial on June 21 to lodge a protest or to explain itself. Nor did it make an attempt to determine when the case would be dismissed or whether it could still be heard on the matter. Affirmed. |
| State v Steffesnsen | Feb 7, 2001 | 00-1604-CR | Reasonable Suspicion - D appeals from a judgment convicting him of operating a motor vehicle with a PAC The arresting officer conducted a Terry stop of D's vehicle based upon information from a citizen eyewitness that the vehicle was being operated in an erratic fashion. D contends that because the officer relied solely upon an anonymous tip, the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle or probable cause to arrest. The court does not view this case as involving an anonymous informant, but rather an identified citizen informant. Thus, the particular reliability of the tip provided the officer with reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop and that probable cause supported the arrest. |
| State v Gibson | Feb 6, 2001 | 00-2399-CR | Blood Test - D appeals from his eighth conviction for OWI. He contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the blood test results because the blood was taken after he had initially refused the test. He reasons that the implied consent statute provides the exclusive remedy for an OWI suspect's refusal to submit to a chemical test. Applying the rationale of Bohling, Zielke and Thorstad, the court is satisfied that the implied consent statute does not restrict the police from using other constitutional means to collect evidence of the driver's intoxication. Because D does not challenge the blood test as an unreasonable search in violation of the requirements set forth in Bohling, the trial court properly denied D's motion to suppress the blood test result. |
| State v Carbine | Jan 31, 2000 | 00-2282-CR | Collateral Attack of Prior Convinctions - D appeals from a conviction for 4th offense OMVWI. D argues that his pleas to the first and third OMVWI offenses were constitutionally defective and therefore invalid for purposes of sentence enhancement pursuant to Wis. Stat. §346.65(2)(d). D contends that his motion to collaterally attack the prior convictions was wrongly denied. Because State v. Hahn, 2000 WI 118, 238 Wis.2d 889, 618 N.W.2d 528, is dispositive, the court affirms the judgment of conviction and the order. |
| State v Curtis | Jan 24, 2001 | 00-2264-CR | Probable Cause - Following the denial of her motion to suppress, D pled no contest to a charge of OWI. D contended that the arresting officer did not have the requisite probable cause to request the PBT. The trial court rejected this argument. Curtis challenges this ruling on appeal. D's unsteadiness during the balance test and the odor of intoxicants, albeit slight, would warrant a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that it was more than a possibility that D was intoxicated at the time she drove into the back of the bus. The judgment is affirmed. |
| State v Dockry | Jan 23, 2001 | 00-2070-CR | Insufficient Probable Cause - D appeals a judgment of conviction for OWI. D argues that the trial court erred by concluding that the arresting officer had sufficient probable cause to arrest. There was insufficient probable cause to believe D was under the influence based solely upon the fact that there was an accident and that D had previously imbibed an unknown amount of alcohol. With nothing further, the officer was without probable cause to arrest and therefore the court reverses the judgment of conviction and the order denying D's motion to suppress. |
| State v Rabas | Jan 23, 2001 | 00-1934-CR | Reasonable Suspicion - D appeals a judgment of conviction for OWI. D argues that the trial court erred by concluding that the arresting officer had a reasonable suspicion to detain him to investigate a possible OWI violation. The court finds that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop D because he was reliably informed that D was operating the sufficiently identified motorcycle while under the influence of an intoxicant. Therefore, the trial court correctly denied D's motion to suppress. |
| State v Slawatyniec | Jan 23, 2001 | 00-2082-CR | Probable Cause - D appeals his judgment of conviction for 2nd offense OWI - PAC. D claims the arresting officer lacked probable cause to administer a PBT, and hence lacked probable cause to arrest him. As a result, he argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the results of a blood test. The officer reported a strong odor of intoxicants coming from D, "glossy" eyes and slurred speech. D admitted to drinking and driving. He also admitted to not drinking after he parked his car. In this case, the indicators of intoxication observed support probable cause to believe D was OWI. Once that threshold was reached, administration of the PBT was justified. When the PBT results were known, the officer had probable cause to arrest for OWI. |
| State v Kain | Jan 17, 2001 | 00-1831-CR | Reasonable
Suspicion - The first issue is whether the arresting officer in
this OWI-BAC case had reasonable suspicion to stop D. The court concludes
that the officer had such reasonable suspicion based upon an anonymous tip
from another driver that was corroborated by the officer's observations. Newly Discovered Evidence Motion - The second issue is whether D should be granted a new trial on grounds that she uncovered newly discovered evidence undermining the officer's account of the incident. Since a newly discovered evidence motion will only be successful if all elements of a five-element test are met and since D does not meet three of them, the claim fails. |
| State v Arpke | Jan 17, 2001 | 00-1239-FT | Implied Consent - D appeals from an order revoking his driver's license for two years under Wis. Stat. §343.305(10) of the implied consent law and under §343.305(7). He contends that because the subsec. (7) and the subsec. (10) sanctions are mutually exclusive, the revocation must be vacated. Because D violated the implied consent statute by refusing the request to provide law enforcement with a chemical test sample, the court's revocation order is affirmed. |
| State v Strerath | Jan 10, 2001 | 00-1456-CR | Blood Test - D appeals from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a PAC, second offense. D complains that the blood sample was not drawn by a person authorized to do so under Wis. Stat. §343.305(5)(b). Because a sufficient evidentiary foundation existed to establish that D's blood sample was drawn by a qualified person, the court holds that the trial court's admission of the test results into evidence was not an erroneous exercise of discretion. |
| State v. Overberg | Jan 9, 2001 | 00-1711-CR | Blood Test - D appeals a conviction for 2nd offense OWI contending that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the results of a blood test when the blood was taken without his consent and after he had refused the test. D asserts that the implied consent statute supplies the exclusive remedy for an OWI suspect's refusal to submit to a chemical test to determine blood alcohol content. Because the principles enunciated in Zielke and Bohling are present in this case, they control and the trial court therefore properly denied D's motion. |