On Point: 4. Procedure

State v. Patrick J. Fahey, 2005 WI App 171

Issue: Whether requested alternative testing at agency expense is deemed a “request” within § 343.305(5)(a) where made after driver was released from custody, left police department, and then returned about 15 minutes later, ¶7.

Holding:

¶14      … The State, in keeping with the circuit court’s decision, argues that it is unreasonable to think that the legislature meant to hold open the time period for a request beyond when a suspect is released from custody.

State v. James A. Schmidt, 2004 WI App 235
For Schmidt: Daniel S. Diehn

Issue: Whether § 343.305(5)(a) requires that the driver request an additional test after the police have administered the primary test and, if not, whether Schmidt’s pre-blood draw request for a breathalyzer was properly rejected.

Holding:

¶11. Although Wis. Stat. § 343.305(4) and (5) use the term “alternative test,”

State v. Ibrahim Begicevic, 2004 WI App 57
For Begicevic: Donna J. Kuchler

Issue: Whether reading the “Informing the Accused” form in English to a non-English speaking driver was an unreasonable way of conveying required implied consent warnings.

Holding:

¶21. Kennedy did not attempt to obtain an interpreter. When Kennedy read the Informing the Accused in English, Gasse did not translate the form verbatim nor did he make an effort to explain the rights in the form in German to Begicevic.

State v. James W. Keith, 2003 WI App 47, PFR filed 3/5/03
For Keith: Christopher A. Mutschler

Issue/Holding:

¶10 WISCONSIN STAT. § 343.305(5)(a) requires police to offer an alternative chemical test to persons who submit to a chemical test under § 343.305 and who request an alternative test.

…

¶12 The record shows that after Keith’s arrest, while traveling to the hospital,

State v. Richard L. Verkler, 2003 WI App 37
For Verkler: Christopher A. Mutschler

Issue/Holding:

¶1. In State v. Reitter, 227 Wis. 2d 213, 217-18, 595 N.W. 2d 646 (1999), our supreme court held that law officers are under no affirmative duty to advise custodial defendants that the right to counsel does not apply to the implied consent setting.

Village of Little Chute v. Todd A. Walitalo, 2002 WI App 211, PFR filed 8/1/02
For Walitalo: Ralph A. Kalal

Issue/Holding:

¶11. However, the arresting officer, by reading the informing the accused form, simply stated the truth: If Walitalo refused to submit to a chemical test, his driving privileges would be revoked. This statement did not involve any deceit or trickery, but instead accurately informed Walitalo of his precise legal situation. 

State v. Donald Marshall, 2002 WI App 73, PFR filed 2/28/02
For Marshall: Richard L. Zaffiro

Issue: Whether, after the OWI arrestee refused consent for a blood draw, the police could then obtain “consent” for the draw by threatening to use physical force.

Holding: Marshall’s argument that § 343.305(9)(a), by providing the exclusive police option for refusal, bans such a threat has been rejected by State v.

State v. Michael J. Carlson, 2002 WI App 44, PFR filed 1/17/02
For Carlson: Christopher A. Mutschler

Issue: Whether Carlson was entitled to have his refusal charge dismissed with prejudice because his driver’s license was improperly revoked for nineteen days before he was granted a hearing.

Holding: Due process protections — with respect to a hearing before loss of particular interests — are afforded under Mathews v.

State v. Darin W. Baratka, 2002 WI App 288, PFR filed 10/20/02
For Baratka: Michael C. Witt

Issue/Holding:

¶12      Baratka claims that he was not properly informed of his choices and was therefore unable to understand his rights regarding chemical testing.  In order for Baratka to prove he was not adequately informed, he must show:

1.      Has the law enforcement officer not met,

State v. Michael S. Piddington, 2001 WI 24, 241 Wis. 2d 754, 623 N.W.2d 528, affirming State v. Piddington, 2000 WI App 44, 233 Wis.2d 257, 607 N.W.2d 303
For Piddington: Michelle Ann Tjader

Issue: Whether BAC results were suppressible because the profoundly deaf defendant could not have heard the implied-consent law recitation of rights.

Holding:

¶1 … We hold that § 343.305(4) requires the arresting officer under the circumstances facing him or her at the time of the arrest,