COA rejects probable cause, Franks-Mann and spoliation challenges, affirms PAC & refusal judgments
Portage County v. Carter Townsend Andreae, 2024AP1330 & 1331, 9/11/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects Andreae’s challenges to the circuit court’s denial of his three pretrial motions and affirms the refusal and PAC 1st.
Law enforcement received a report of a vehicle traveling the wrong direction on the interstate before going into a ditch and responded to the scene. (¶3). The first officer to arrive, Lieutenant Bean, found a Jeep covered in mud and tangled in fencing with the engine running. (¶4). When Bean spoke to Andreae, who was in the driver’s seat, and his passenger, he could smell a strong odor of alcohol. (¶¶4-5). Bean noticed that Andreae’s eyes were glossy and bloodshot, that his speech was slurred, and saw alcoholic drinks inside the Jeep. (¶5).
Deputy Potocki arrived on the scene next. Bean explained his observations and turned the investigation over to the Portage County Sheriff’s Office. (¶6). Potocki made similar observations as Bean and also saw that Andreae was having a difficult time moving around and staying steady on his feet. (¶8). Andreae admitted he was driving the Jeep. (¶9). He had a bump on his head and officers asked Andreae if he wanted medical attention several times, but he declined. (¶10). Potocki arrested Andreae after observing multiple clues of impairment on SFSTs and took him to a nearby hospital, where Andreae refused to submit to a chemicals test of his blood after being read the informing the accused form. (¶11).
Potocki prepared an affidavit for a search warrant to obtain Andreae’s blood sample, which included some information Bean had supplied prior to Potocki’s arrival on the scene. (¶12). After getting the warrant and blood sample, Potocki tried to upload his squad car video but accidentally deleted it instead. (¶13). Bean did not save his body camera recording, as he did not look for it until he was subpoenaed to testify at Andreae’s suppression hearing and it had already been deleted pursuant to the Stevens Point Police Department’s policy of deleting recordings after 120 days. (¶7).
Andreae filed pretrial motions to suppress the evidence on the basis that Potocki lacked probable cause to arrest him for an OWI-related offense, a Franks-Mann motion which asked the court to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the search warrant, and a spoliation motion based on the officers’ failure to preserve the relevant videos. (¶16). The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing at which Bean and Potocki testified. The court denied all three motions. (¶¶17-19).
Probable Cause
Andreae renews his claims on appeal. Here, the circuit court denied the first suppression motion, concluding that Potocki had probable cause to arrest Andreae based on its factual findings that the officers observed him to have “glossy” eyes, slurred speech, trouble with balance, and a moderate odor of intoxicants, that there were alcoholic beverages in the Jeep, and Andreae’s statement to officers about the accident. (¶24). COA affirms because Andreae does not challenge the circuit court’s factual findings as clearly erroneous, and the court concludes they are not. It also rejects Andreae’s arguments attempting to explain away some of the facts. (¶¶27-29).
Franks-Mann
Andreae argues that the circuit court should have excised certain false statements from Potocki’s affidavit, and that the evidence obtained as a result of that warrant should be suppressed. Specifically, he contends that the averment in the affidavit that a police officer observed him operating the vehicle is false. In doing so, Andreae essentially asks COA to reweigh the witnesses’ credibility differently and make different factual findings, which it declines to do. (¶33).
Spoliation
Andreae argues that the circuit court erred when it did not either dismiss the cases or exclude evidence regarding Bean’s and Potocki’s observations of and interactions with Andreae as a sanction for the destruction of the body camera and squad car recordings. COA concludes that the circuit court’s decision not to dismiss the case was a proper exercise of discretion. The circuit court found that Bean’s video was discarded as part of a standard policy and that Potocki’s destruction of his squad video was accidental, therefore the court concluded there was no egregious conduct. (¶¶40-41). COA also rejects Andreae’s argument that he was prejudiced by the videos’ destruction as unsupported by legal authority. (¶42).