On Point blog, page 12 of 33
SCOW fractures over implied consent law; 3 justices say it doesn’t authorize warrantless blood draws
State v. Navdeep S. Brar, 2017 WI 73, 7/6/17, affirming an unpublished court of appeals opinion, 2015AP1261-CR; case activity (including briefs)
By obtaining a driver’s license or operating a vehicle in Wisconsin do we automatically give the government consent to draw our blood without a warrant? A nose count reveals the answer remains “maybe.”
SCOW finds no problem with felony and misdemeanor penalty for same OAR offense
State v. Ernesto E. Lazo Villamil, 2017 WI 74, 7/6/17, affirming a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
A few years ago the legislature set out to create a graduated penalty scheme for operating after revocation offenses, but it bungled the job and ended up creating misdemeanor and felony penalties for the offense of causing death while knowingly operating after revocation. The supreme court rebuffs Villamil’s claims that under the rule of lenity only the misdemeanor penalty can be imposed or, in the alternative, that creating two very different penalties for the same crime violates due process and equal protection. The court agrees with his request for resentencing, however, because the circuit court failed to consider the statutorily mandated sentencing factors.
Court of appeals rejects challenges to motorboat implied consent citation
State v. Donald G. Verkuylen, 2016AP2364, 5/18/2017, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Verkuylen pled to refusing a blood draw contrary to the motorboat implied consent law, Wis. Stat. § 30.684. He raises several arguments about the statutorily required warnings, but the court of appeals finds them all either meritless or forfeited.
Court of appeals asks SCOW again: Does warrantless blood draw of unconscious motorist violate the 4th Amendment?
State v. Gerald P. Mitchell, 2015AP304-CR; District 2, 5/17/17, certification granted 9/11/17; case activity (including briefs)
Issue: Whether the warrantless blood draw of an unconscious motorist pursuant to Wisconsin’s implied consent law, where no exigent circumstances exist or have been argued, violates the Fourth Amendment.
SCOW: 1 car crash killing 2 victims yields 2 counts of “hit and run” in violation of sec. 346.67(1)
State v. Sambath Pal, 2017 WI 44, 4/28/17, affirming a court of appeals summary disposition, 2015AP1782-CR; case activity (including briefs)
Driver crashes into group of motorcyclists, kills one, mortally injures a second, flees the scene, and eventually pleads guilty to 2 counts of hit and run resulting in death contrary to §346.67(1). He’s sentenced to 2 consecutive terms of 10 years IC and 10 years ES. Questions Presented: Did driver commit 1 offense or 2? And is his sentence unduly harsh?
Challenges to blood draw, use of OWI prior convictions rejected
State v. Julieann Baehni, 2015AP2263-CR, 4/27/17, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Baehni was charged with OWI, fourth offense. In the circuit she unsuccessfully sought to have the blood draw test results suppressed because she wasn’t given the alternative test she requested. She also collaterally attacked two of her prior convictions, likewise without success. The court of appeals affirms.
Court of appeals again holds officer’s HGN testimony isn’t subject to Daubert
State v. Brandon Arthur Millard, 2016AP1474-CR, 4/20/17, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
¶10 This court has previously rejected arguments that Daubert applies to a law enforcement officer’s testimony regarding HGN. See State v. VanMeter, No. 2014AP1852, unpublished slip op. (WI App Nov. 24, 2015), and State v. Warren,
Splintered SCOW fails to decide constitutionality of statute authorizing blood draws from unconscious persons
State v. David W. Howes, 2017 WI 18, on certification from the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)
The supreme court granted certification in this case to decide an important question: Does Wisconsin’s implied consent statute create a categorical “consent” exception to the warrant requirement as to unconscious drivers, thus allowing police to collect blood without having to get a warrant or establish exigent circumstances or some other exception? But the court doesn’t answer that question, leaving the law in a muddle. On top of that, the court reverses the circuit court’s suppression order, though without a majority agreement as to why the blood draw was legal, and with some justices invoking a theory the state didn’t argue in the circuit court.
Consent to blood draw was voluntary
State v. Eric M. Doule, 2016AP1146-CR, District 3, 2/14/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The record supports the conclusion that Doule voluntarily consented to a blood draw after he was arrested for OWI.
State v. Ernesto E. Lazo Villamil, 2015AP791-CR, petitions for review and cross-review granted 1/9/2017
Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Issues (from the petition for review and petition for cross-review)
1. Whether the offense under § 343.44(2)(ar)4. can be punished as either a misdemeanor or a felony in order to resolve ambiguity in the statutory language when the legislature’s intent was to create a penalty scheme with increasing penalties for additional elements; or whether, instead, the doctrine of implied repeal should be employed to correct the obvious drafting error that created the ambiguity as to whether the offense is a misdemeanor or a felony.
2. Whether § 343.44(2)(ar)4., having been interpreted to give discretion to the prosecution to charge an offense as a misdemeanor or a felony, can be constitutionally applied.
3. Whether the provision in § 343.44(2)(b) stating that the circuit court “shall” consider certain sentencing factors is mandatory or directory.