On Point: 4. Procedure

State of Wisconsin/City of Sturgeon Bay v. Bradley H. Hart, 2013AP85, District 3, 6/18/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court’s finding that Hart refused a chemical is not clearly erroneous, despite Hart’s being from Illinois, where the law is different, and his acquiescence, without physical resistance, to the blood draw done after his initial refusal. He was advised of Wisconsin law before he was asked to submit to a test,

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Does a circuit court have discretion to dismiss a refusal proceeding after the prosecution of the underlying OWI charge results in an acquittal?

This case is of obvious interest to OWI practitioners, even if its facts are unusual and, thus, not likely to arise very often. As we noted in our post about the court of appeals decision,

State v. Brandon H. Bentdahl, 2012AP1426, District 4, 12/6/12; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 6/13/13; reversed, 2013 WI 106; case activity

A circuit court has discretionary authority to dismiss a refusal charge, § 343.305, after the defendant has pleaded guilty to the underlying OWI, State v. Brooks,

on review of unpublished decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point) 

Whether the municipal court lacks competence to extend the 10-day time deadline for requesting a refusal hearing.

Brefka filed a request for refusal hearing outside the 10-day time limit in § 343.305(9)(a)4. Does a court possess competence to extend that deadline? No dice, according to the court of appeals: “Section 343.305(9)(a)4. specifically mandates that if the request for a hearing is not received within the ten-day period, 

State v. William R. Hartman, 2011AP622, District 4, 9/20/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

OWI – Refusal Hearing – Raising Challenge to Lawfulness of Stop

Refusal hearing supports litigation of lawfulness of stop; State v. Anagnos, 2012 WI 64, ¶42, 341 Wis. 2d 576, 815 N.W.2d 675, followed:

 ¶14      Accordingly, we reject the State’s contention that Hartman improperly raised the issue of reasonable suspicion at the refusal hearing.   

State v. Dimitrius Anagnos, 2012 WI 64, reversing 2011 WI App 118; case activity

OWI – Refusal Hearing – Authority to Litigate Constitutionality of Traffic Stop 

Constitutionality of the traffic stop  may be raised as a defense at a refusal hearing, § 343.305(9)(a)5.a.

¶29  In this case, the relevant portion of the statute is found in sub. (9)(a)5.a.  That subsection permits circuit courts to consider “[w]hether the officer had probable cause to believe the person was driving or operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol . 

Village of Elm Grove v. Richard K. Brefka, 2011AP2888, District 1/2, 6/19/12, WSC review granted 11/14/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication), supreme court review granted 11/14/12; case activity

The municipal court lacks competence to extend the 10-day time deadline for requesting a refusal hearings, given the clear language of §§ 343.305(9)(a)4. and (10)(a). Village of Butler v.

on review of published opinion; for Anagnos: Barry S. Cohen; case activity; prior post

Traffic Stop – Reasonable Suspicion – OWI Refusal Hearing Challenge to Arrest

Issues (composed by On Point): 

1. Whether the officer could lawfully stop Anagnos’ vehicle for failing to use a turn signal where neither traffic nor pedestrians were present, § 346.34(1)(b).

2. Whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Anagnos’

State v. Darren A. Kliss, 2007 WI App 13
For Kliss: Michael C. Witt

Issue/Holding:

¶7        … Because the implied consent law makes no provision for the right to counsel, an officer is correct to record a refusal if the arrestee insists on speaking to an attorney before answering.…¶8        … County of Ozaukee v. Quelle, 198 Wis. 2d 269, 276, 542 N.W.2d 196 (Ct.

State v. Darren A. Kliss, 2007 WI App 13
For Kliss: Michael C. Witt

Issue/Holding: Administering Miranda rights prior to the “Informing the Accused” caution applicable to OWI does not invalidate the latter (at least where the motorist is concurrently under arrest for a separate crime):

¶14      There is no dispute that Thomas read Kliss the Miranda warning prior to reading the Informing the Accused.