On Point blog, page 1 of 2
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.
COA finds police had reasonable suspicion to extend traffic stop to conduct field sobriety tests; reverses suppression order.
State of Wisconsin v. Alex Mark Hagen, 2024AP1180, 3/6/25 District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA reversed the circuit court’s order suppressing evidence of field sobriety tests and their fruits, finding that police had reasonable suspicion to extend a traffic stop to investigate the defendant for operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
COA holds that difference between “L meth” and “D meth” does not create a defense to RCS prosecution
State v. Walter L. Johnson, 2024AP79-CR, 2/13/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity
In a case resolving a hot issue for OWI litigators, COA rejects challenges to an RCS prosecution based on the chemical difference between “L meth”–found in certain nasal decongestant sprays–and “D meth,” which is found in illicit street drugs.
COA: Driver misinformed he would be charged with first-offense OWI did not have right to refuse breath test; Ignition Interlock statute does not violate Dormant Commerce Clause when applied to out-of-state resident.
State v. Sharpe, 2021AP1543 & 2022AP307, 9/24/24, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity here and here
COA determines defendant arrested for OWI did not meet burden to show that he was unable to make knowing and intelligent choice about submitting to breath test when officers misinformed him that he would be charged with a first-offense OWI. COA rejects facial and as-applied challenge to IID statute based on Dormant Commerce Clause.
COA rejects challenges to refusal finding; holds that refusal statute is not unconstitutional
State v. Albert A. Terhune, 2023AP353, 9/19/24, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In a somewhat complicated OWI appeal, COA ultimately affirms under well-settled legal standards.
Lit cigarette, red eyes, thick speech and speeding sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion of OWI
State v. Iain A. Johnson, 2022AP389-CR, 4/2/24, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
Although COA concedes this is a “close case,” it nevertheless concludes that the evidence satisfies the relatively low burden for reasonable suspicion to extend a traffic stop.
COA rejects constitutional challenge to legislature’s inclusion of non-impairing metabolite as restricted controlled substance
State v. Dustin J. VanderGalien, 2023AP890-CR, 12/29/23, District 4 (recommended for publication); case activity
VanderGalien pled no contest to three counts stemming from a fatal motor vehicle crash after a non-impairing cocaine metabolite (benzoylecgonine or “BE”) was detected in his blood hours after the incident. The court of appeals rejects his facial challenge to the statute, Wis. Stat. § 340.01(50m)(c), which includes BE as a restricted controlled substance under the motor vehicle code. The court of appeals explains that “the inclusion of cocaine or any of its metabolites in the definition of a restricted controlled substance for purposes of prosecution under the Wisconsin motor vehicle code bears a rational relationship to the purpose or objective of the statutory scheme,” which is to combat drugged driving. Op., ¶30.
COA rejects multiple challenges to first-offense OWI and refusal convictions and affirms
City of Whitewater v. Douglas E. Kosch, 2022AP800, District II, 9/13/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)
Although Kosch throws the kitchen sink at his OWI and refusal convictions, COA methodically works through his myriad challenges on a path toward affirmance.
Barring PBT evidence didn’t violate right to present defense
State v. Jude W. Giles, 2018AP1967-CR, District 3, 10/8/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Jude’s sought to admit the results of his preliminary breath test results (.076) to lay a foundation for his expert’s opinion that alcohol was still being absorbed into his blood, making the state hygiene lab’s blood test result (.144) higher than his blood alcohol content at the time he was driving. (¶¶2-5). The circuit court properly disallowed the evidence because it runs smack dab into § 343.303 and State v. Fischer, 2010 WI 6, 322 Wis. 2d 265, 778 N.W.2d, both of which strictly prohibit the admission of PBT results.
Court of Appeals rejects constitutional challenges to detectable amount of controlled substances law
State v. Blake Lee Harrison, 2017AP1811, District 3, 2/26/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Harrison’s due process and void-for-vagueness challenges to § 346.63(1)(am) (prohibiting driving with a detectable amount of restricted controlled substance) go up in smoke.