On Point blog, page 1 of 34
COA affirms traffic stop for reasonable suspicion of noise ordinance violation
State v. Jacobe Michael Gimmel, 2025AP1037 & 2025AP1537, 1/29/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
Gimmel appeals his conviction for OWI 2nd and the revocation of his driver’s license for refusing a chemical test. The sole issue in the consolidated appeal is whether the officer who stopped Gimmel had reasonable suspicion to do so. COA affirms, concluding the officer had reasonable suspicion that Gimmel had violated a local noise ordinance.
COA rejects novel refusal argument and affirms
State v. Jeffrey Lee Buss, 2025AP392, 1/23/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
Although Buss makes some interesting arguments as to why he did not “refuse” the requested breath test, COA is unpersuaded and affirms.
COA rejects sufficiency challenge for failure to control vehicle
State v. Jacob T. Thornburg, 2023AP600, 1/21/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
In an appeal following a bench trial for an alleged violation of the traffic code, COA rejects the pro se appellant’s arguments and affirms.
COA: Criminal charges for violating conditions imposed as a result of refusing a warrantless blood draw are constitutional.
State v. Nicholas L. Sparby-Duncan,2024AP1012-CR, 1/6/26, District III (recommended for publication); case activity
In an opinion recommended for publication, the COA affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Nicholas Sparby-Duncan’s motion to dismiss charges for failing to install an ignition interlock device (IID) and operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration (PAC) above .02. The COA found that the IID and PAC charges did not impose criminal penalties for Sparby-Duncan previously refusing to submit to a warrantless blood draw, although he was required to install an IID – which subjected him to the .02 PAC — as a result of his 2008 conviction for refusing.
COA: Police reasonably conveyed implied consent warnings to suspected drunk driver although officer commented to driver that not all of the warnings applied.
State v. Sam M. Shareef, 2025AP661, 12/10/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA holds that police reasonably conveyed implied consent warnings to a suspected drunk driver although the officer told the driver that some of the circumstances described on the Informing the Accused form did not apply to him.
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.
COA concludes testimony alone, with no physical evidence, is sufficient to affirm conviction for driving faster than was reasonable and prudent.
Dane County v. Trent Joseph Meyer, 2024AP1630, 8/14/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed a conviction for driving faster than was reasonable and prudent under the conditions where the defendant drove 20 miles-per-hour above the speed limit and came “close” to other cars’ bumpers.
Defense Win: Court commissioner lacked authority to conduct trial in traffic forfeiture case
Waushara County v. Beatrice Bruning, 2025AP300, 8/7/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a case with a slightly convoluted procedural history, COA accepts the County’s concession that traffic citations are invalid as they resulted from a trial conducted before a court commissioner instead of a circuit court judge.
COA: Sufficient evidence to convict for OWI on a “highway” where intoxicated driver found in the driver’s seat of his truck while parked in a ditch.
State of Wisconsin v. Robert W. Berghuis, 2025AP134-CR, District II, 8/6/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed a jury’s guilty verdict for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, finding the evidence was sufficient that the driver operated the vehicle on a “highway” when law enforcement encountered the driver in the driver’s seat of his truck that was parked in a ditch.
SCOW affirms circuit court’s authority to reinstate previously dismissed conviction under 346.63(1)
State v. Carl L. McAdory, 2025 WI 30, 7/1/25, case activity
A unanimous SCOW held that the circuit court had authority under Wis. Stat. 346.63(1)(c) to reinstate Carl McAdory’s conviction for operating a vehicle with a restricted controlled substance in his blood, which was dismissed when he was also convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of a controlled substance that arose out of the same incident or occurrence, after the OWI conviction was vacated on appeal. The Court also rejected McAdory’s claims that the State forfeited the right to seek reinstatement by not raising the issue on his appeal from his OWI conviction, that the circuit court did not comply with the COA’s mandate, and that he was subjected to double jeopardy.