COA affirms probable cause finding at refusal hearing
State v. Jason D. Hull, 2025AP483, 10/23/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed the circuit court’s judgment that the Dodge County Sheriff’s Department had probable cause to believe that Jason Hull operated a vehicle while intoxicated and his refusal to submit to chemical testing was therefore improper.
A.B. called the Dodge County Sheriff’s Department to report a “male and female fighting,” which law enforcement determined was made from a road. While deputies drove to the site of the call, A.B. called again from her residence. The deputies went to the residence and met with Hull, whom law enforcement estimated had returned home thirty minutes earlier. (¶ 3). The sergeant observed items thrown throughout the house and saw that Hull had a cut on his face, bloodshot and glassy eyes, smelled like alcohol, and had delayed and slurred speech. (¶ 3).
Hull told the deputies that he “doesn’t answer questions” but that A.B. “destroyed stuff and broke something inside of his truck.” (¶ 4). The sergeant asked Hull if he had been drinking and Hull said he does not answer questions. (¶ 4).
A.B. told the sergeant that she and Hull left a tavern in Fox Lake, that Hull was driving, and that they “got into a disturbance” while they were driving home. After A.B. called 911, she said, Hull got out of the truck, walked home, and returned on a utility terrain vehicle (UTV). A.B. then drove the truck home and Hull returned home on the UTV. (¶ 5).
The sergeant saw the UTV parked in the driveway of the residence and attempted to talk to Hull, but Hull “repeatedly” told him that he does not answer questions and did not want to incriminate himself. (¶ 6). The sergeant checked Hull’s driving record and learned that he had a .02 blood alcohol content restriction and was required to have an ignition interlock device on his vehicle due to a prior conviction for operating while intoxicated. (¶ 6).
The sergeant asked Hull to perform field sobriety tests and to submit to a preliminary breath test, which Hull refused. (¶ 7). Hull was arrested and the sergeant read the Informing the Accused form to Hull regarding testing samples of his breath, blood or urine to determine the presence of alcohol and advised him that refusing to submit to chemical testing would result in revoking Hull’s driving privileges. (¶ 8). Hull said he did not answer questions, which the sergeant interpreted as refusing to consent. The circuit court found that Hull’s refusal was improper because the sergeant had probable cause to believe that Hull operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated. (¶ 9).
The COA noted that A.B. told law enforcement that Hull drove the truck after they left the tavern and that Hull drove the UTV. Thirty minutes after Hull returned home, the sergeant smelled alcohol on him, observed his speech was slurred and delayed, and saw that his eyes were glassy and bloodshot. Further, Hull was subject to a .02 blood alcohol restriction and refused to perform field sobriety or preliminary breath tests. The Court concluded: “Taken together, the circumstances known to the sergeant at the time of arrest, along with reasonable inferences drawn from those circumstances, suffice to support a reasonable officer’s belief that Hull had operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated.” (¶ 18).
The Court agreed with Hull’s argument that law enforcement needed probable cause at the time he operated a vehicle, and not just when they encountered him, but determined they met this burden given A.B.’s statement that only thirty minutes elapsed between when Hull was likely driving and the sergeant observing Hull with signs of intoxication. (¶ 19).
The Court did not consider Hull’s argument that his choice not to answer the sergeant’s questions did not constitute a refusal because Hull did not raise this issue in the circuit court. (¶ 23).