COA: OWI suspect was not under arrest when transported to police station to perform field sobriety tests.
State of Wisconsin v. Brenda L. Roszina, 2024AP898, 1/13/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms the circuit court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the fruits of field sobriety tests because the investigatory stop did not ripen into an arrest without probable cause when police transported the defendant from a parking lot to the police station one mile away to perform the tests.
Hales Corners police responded to a 911 call reporting a possibly intoxicated driver at the Hale House Tavern. A detective encountered Brenda Roszina leaning against a vehicle in the tavern’s parking lot before she “started to stumble” toward the bar. The detective observed that Roszina’s eyes were bloodshot, her speech was slurred, and she smelled “strongly” of alcohol. Roszina admitted to the detective that she drove to the bar and had been drinking earlier in the day. (¶ 2).
The detective asked Roszina to perform field sobriety tests and inquired whether she would prefer to take the tests at the police station one mile away. The detective testified at the evidentiary hearing regarding Roszina’s motion to suppress that he was concerned about performing the tests in the parking lot because there were a lot of cars going in and out. Roszina agreed to take the tests at the police station, and she was placed in the back of a squad car. She was not handcuffed and told that she was not under arrest. (¶ 3).
Roszina failed most of the field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test showed her alcohol content was .20. She was charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated as a second offense and operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration as a second offense. (¶¶ 4-5). Roszina filed a motion to suppress the fruits of the field sobriety tests arguing that she was arrested without probable cause when she was transported to the police station for the tests. (¶ 5). The circuit court denied the motion and Roszina was convicted at a court trial of operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration; she was found not guilty of operating while intoxicated. (¶ 6).
On appeal, Roszina renewed the argument that her investigatory detention expanded to an arrest without probable cause when she was placed in the squad car and driven to the police station.
The COA noted that, when evaluating the reasonableness of moving a person subject to an investigatory detention from one location to another, the Court considers whether the person was moved within the vicinity of the incident, whether the purpose in moving the person was reasonable, and whether the person would have considered himself or herself in custody given the degree of restraint. (¶ 9) (citing Quartana).
The Court concluded a reasonable person in Roszina’s position would not have considered herself in custody because the detective asked if she would be more comfortable at the police station and she agreed. (¶ 11). Although the Court recognized that Roszina was in the back of a squad car, she was not in handcuffs and the detective told her she was not under arrest: “A reasonable person in Roszina’s position would have understood that they were being transported to the police station for the sole purpose of continuing the investigatory stop in a less busy and chaotic location, and if they were to pass the standardized field sobriety tests, they would be free to leave.” (¶ 11).
The Court also found that one mile was sufficiently within the vicinity of the incident and that the detective’s purpose in moving Roszina was reasonable in light of his testimony that he encountered her in a “very public area, right off a major highway,” and vehicles were coming and going. (¶ 15).