On Point blog, page 7 of 7
OWI – Refusal Hearing – Litigation of Constitutionality of Traffic Stop
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 .
OWI – Refusal Hearing , Untimely Request, Competence of Court to Hear
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.
State v. Dimitrius Anagnos, 2011 WI App 118, rev. granted 1/25/12
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’
OWI – Refusal – Right to Counsel
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.
OWI – Due Process – pre-Refusal Hearing Revocation
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.