On Point: Refusal Hearing

State v. Matthew E. Sullivan, 2023AP2138, 10/19/23, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Prior to his refusal hearing, Sullivan requested a continuance so he could obtain counsel. The circuit court denied his request. Sullivan then represented himself and challenged the sought after revocation by relying on the affirmative defense that a “physical disability or diseased unreleated to the use of alcohol” caused him to refuse the test. See Wis. Stat. § 343.305(9)(a)5.c. The circuit court rejected Sullivan’s affirmative defense and revoked his license. The court of appeals affirms.

State v. Bryson Keith Williams, 2023AP838, 10/4/23, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Applying the familiar test for assessing the adequacy of the officer’s reading of the implied consent warnings, COA agrees that Williams’ refusal was unlawful.

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.

State v. Peter John Long, 2022AP496, District 2, 5/3/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The state concedes, and the court of appeals agrees, that Long is entitled to a hearing on his motion to reopen the default judgment entered in his refusal proceeding.

State v. Roman C. Ozimek, 2021AP452, District 3, 11/22/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Ozimek challenges the revocation of his driving privileges for refusing a blood draw after he was arrested for OWI. The court of appeals rejects his claim that the circuit court should have considered evidence that the officer misinformed Ozimek of his “constitutional right” to obtain his own chemical testing without having to first consent to the officer’s request for chemical testing.

Forest County v. Brian M. Steinert, 2020AP1465, District 3, 1/19/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Steinert challenged his refusal citation on the ground the police didn’t have probable cause to arrest him, see § 343.305(9)(a)5.a. The court of appeals rejects his challenge.

State v. Taras O. Haliw, 2021AP1095, District 4, 1/13/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Haliw argues his license shouldn’t be revoked for refusing a chemical test for alcohol because the police didn’t have probable cause to arrest him for OWI, see § 343.305(9)(a)5.a. The court of appeals rejects his argument.

State v. Edward R. Gasse, 2021AP484, 9/29/2021, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Gasse arrived at the police station shortly after midnight; officers had observed him about 80 minutes prior at his residence and believed him to be drunk. He initially said he’d driven there but later changed his story; video surveillance revealed that he had, in fact, driven. After some limited field sobriety testing, the officer at the station arrested him and he refused to consent to chemical testing. He appeals the circuit court’s determination that there was probable cause for the arrest and thus that the refusal citation was lawful.

State v. Derek V. Schroth, 2021AP733, District 2, 8/25/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Schroth challenges the probable cause to arrest him for OWI and the finding that he refused a blood draw. There were ample facts for probable cause. (¶¶3-8, 13-15). And though the arresting officer couldn’t recall whether Schroth said “no” or “something else” when asked to submit to a blood draw,

Washington County v. James Michael Conigliaro, 2020AP888, District 2, 12/9/20 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Conigliaro appealed an order finding that he refused to submit to an evidentiary chemical test. He argued that the arresting officer, Joseph Lagash, led him to believe that he had the right to consult with an attorney before deciding whether to submit to the test and/or that Lagash failed to dispel his belief that he had the right to counsel. The court of appeals rejects both arguments.