COA finds probable arrest for OWI; holds that driver’s accent did not compel inquiry into whether driver could understand “Informing the Accused”
State v. Viktor Vavilins, 2025AP439, 11/5/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
In this refusal appeal, COA holds that the evidence justified the officer’s arrest and that Vavilins’s “Eastern European accent” did not require an inquiry into whether an interpreter was needed before reading the Informing the Accused form.
Probable Cause
Here, COA quickly dispatches with Vavilins’s claim that the officer lacked PC for his arrest based on the circuit court’s findings which establish that “Vavilins drove erratically; he got out of the driver’s side of the vehicle; he slurred his speech; he smelled of alcohol; and he declined three times to cooperate with field sobriety tests. These facts are easily sufficient to meet the probable cause standard.” (¶18). Vavilins maintains, however, that the evidence did not clearly establish he was the driver. (¶19). However, the record shows that the officer testified that he “directly observed Vavilins get out of the vehicle.” (¶21).
Conveyance of Implied Consent Warnings
An accused can prevail at a refusal hearing by showing that the officer did not reasonably convey the required warnings. (¶23). When a potential language barrier is at issue, there are two cases on point. First, in State v. Piddington the driver was deaf, meaning that “an obstacle to understanding was evident . . . .” (¶27). However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ultimately determined that the “combination of methods” used to convey the information (including sign language and requiring Piddington to read the form) were sufficient under the circumstances. (Id.). Piddington is contrasted from State v. Begicevic, where it was clear that the driver “struggled to communicate in English.” (¶28). Police did not seek to translate the warnings and primarily communicated them in a language he could not understand. (Id.).Thus, the warnings were conveyed in a “manifestly unreasonable” manner. (Id.).
Here, Vavilins places a great deal of emphasis on his accent which, coupled with his “short responses” creates what he claims was an obligation for the police to affirmatively investigate his English language comprehension before administering the warnings in English. (¶32). Assessing the reasonableness of the officer’s conduct under the totality of the circumstances, and accepting the lower court’s findings of fact, COA is not persuaded that the officer needed to do more in this circumstance. (¶38). An accent, without more, does not create an Informing the Accused Problem. (Id.).