On Point blog, page 13 of 33
State v. Navdeep S. Brar, 2015AP1261-CR, petition for review granted, 12/19/16
Review of an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs); petition for review
Issues (composed by On Point):
1. Whether a driver, who is a non-native speaker of English, consents to a blood draw where, in response to the officer’s question “will you consent” gives an unintelligible answer, then clearly asks “what kind of test?” and “don’t you need a warrant?” and where the driver does not otherwise “resist” or “fight” the blood draw?
2. Whether a driver’s acquiescence to a blood draw is voluntary when it occurs after he asks the officer “don’t you need a warrant?” and the officer shakes his head “no.”
Challenges to seizure, arrest, refusal finding rejected
Washington County v. Daniel L. Schmidt, 2016AP908, District 2, 11/30/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Schmidt makes a three-pronged attack on the revocation of his driving privileges for refusing a chemical test, arguing he was seized without reasonable suspicion, arrested without probable cause, and did not improperly refuse a test. The court of appeals rejects each claim.
State v. Sambath Pal, 2015AP1782-CR, petition for review granted 10/11/2016
Review of a court of appeals summary disposition; case activity (including briefs); petition for review
Issues (composed by On Point)
(1) Could the defendant be convicted of two counts of hit and run with death resulting for a single act of leaving the scene of an accident that caused two deaths?
(2) Is the defendant’s sentence unduly harsh?
Defense experts’ testimony about possible blood test errors too speculative to be admitted
State v. Ali Garba, 2015AP1243-CR, District 2, 10/5/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Garba wanted to present testimony from two expert witnesses about possible reliability problems with the gas chromatography tests of his blood, but the circuit court wouldn’t let him. The court of appeals holds the circuit court properly exercised its discretion and rejects Garba’s claim the ruling violated his right to present a defense.
Probable cause for OWI arrest; video of refusal sufficiently authenticated
State v. Steven N. Jackson, 2015AP2682, 9/22/16, District 4 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Steven Jackson was arrested for OWI and also charged with a refusal to submit to a blood test. On appeal of the refusal, he first argues that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him.
Blood draw by paramedic was okay
State v. Steven W. Heath, 2014AP2466-CR, District 4, 9/15/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Heath challenges the blood draw evidence in his OWI prosecution, claiming that the paramedic who did the draw wasn’t a “person acting under the direction of a physician” as required by § 343.305(5)(b) and that the method and manner of the blood draw was not constitutionally reasonable. The court of appeals rejects his claims.
Toxicologist could give opinion about impairment
State v. Lory F. Kerk, 2015AP2608-CR, District 3, 9/13/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court didn’t err in allowing the state to elicit testimony from its expert toxicologist that Kerk was impaired by the amount of alcohol and prescription drugs found in her blood.
Court had jurisdiction over OWI mistakenly charged as a criminal offense
State v. Timothy A. Giese, 2015AP1838-CR, District 3, 9/13/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The supreme court’s recent decision in City of Eau Claire v. Booth Britton, 2016 WI 65, disposes of Giese’s claim that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over a mistakenly charged second-offense OWI.
Findings of fact doom challenge to refusal
State v. S.G./Waukesha County v. S.G., 2015AP2138 & 2015AP2139, District 2, 8/24/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
S.G. challenges the revocation of her driver’s license for refusal, arguing the arresting officer didn’t sufficiently convey the implied consent warnings to her. She also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for her OWI conviction. Neither challenge succeeds.
Facts established probable cause to arrest and were sufficient to support guilty verdict
Village of Bayside v. Amber E. Schoeller, 2016AP256 & 2016AP257, District 1, 8/9/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court’s factual findings—which Schoeller doesn’t argue are clearly erroneous—doom her claims that the officer didn’t have probable cause to arrest her and that the evidence isn’t sufficient to prove she’s guilty of OWI.