On Point: B. Chs. 343-346: Traffic offense

State v. Brian K. Sowatzke, 2010 WI App 81; for Sowatzke: Andrew R. Walter; BiC; Resp.; Reply

¶13      Sowatzke had two countable OWI “convictions, suspensions or revocations” (i.e., he had two OWI convictions) at the time he was arrested on May 9; he had a BAC of 0.048 percent at the time he was arrested on May 9; his legal BAC limit was 0.08 percent at the time he was arrested on May 9.  

decision below: 2009 WI App 156; for Carter: Craig M. Kuhary

Issues:

Do violations of Illinois’ zero tolerance (absolute sobriety) law count as prior offenses for sentence enhancement purposes under Wisconsin’s Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) Law (Wis. Stat. §§ 346.63 and 346.65)?

What methodology are trial courts to employ in determining whether to count out-of-state OWI-related offenses for sentence enhancement purposes under Wis. Stat. § 343.307?

supreme court decision; court of appeals decision; for Fischer: James M. Shellow, Robin Shellow, Urszula Tempska

Note: federal habeas relief was subequently granted, Richard M. Fischer v. Ozaukee Co. Circ. Ct., ED Wis No. 10-C-553, 9/29/10.  Federal appellate and district court cases don’t bind Wisconsin courts, which therefore needn’t follow this habeas decision, e.g., State v. Mechtel, 176 Wis. 

court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication)

OWI – Probable Cause for PBT
Probable cause to administer PBT: rollover accident, odor of intoxicant, Tadych acknowledged drinking; also, PBT result admissible to establish probable cause to arrest.

court of appeals decision; for Puchacz: William M. Hayes
Resp Br

OWI Enhancer, § 346.65(2) – Out-of-State Conviction
Michigan convictions for driving while visibly impaired may be counted as Wisconsin OWI priors, given “broad interpretation and application of the final phrase in Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1)(d) and the public policy supporting our drunk driving laws,” ¶¶12-13.

Traffic Stop – Deviating from Center Line, § 346.05
Crossing center line,

Hit and run causing injury is felony

Click here for court of appeals decision 

Defense counsel: John M. Yackel

 Issue/Holding: Although it carries a maximum penalty of 9 months’ imprisonment, hit-and-run causing injury less than serious bodily harm, §§ 346.67(1) and 346.74(5)(b), is a felony. 

Analysis:  Obviously, this result is going to make life more difficult for hit-run representation, for the obvious reason: it’s one thing to advise your client to plead out to a misdemeanor,

State v. Ross M. Brandt, 2009 WI App 115
For Brandt: John M. Yackel

Issue/Holding: Although it carries a maximum penalty of 9 months’ imprisonment, hit-and-run causing injury less than serious bodily harm, §§ 346.67(1) and 346.74(5)(b), is a felony.

Obviously, this result is going to make life more difficult for hit-run representation, for the obvious reason: it’s one thing to advise your client to plead out to a misdemeanor,

Waukesha County v. Eric D. Smith, 2008 WI 23, affirming unpublished decision
For Smith: Kirk B. Obear

Issue/Holding: By reading the required statutory information verbatim, the officer fully complied with § 343.305(4); he did not err by failing to inform the driver that he might incur penalties different from those in Wisconsin relative to the state that issued his license nor by telling the driver that if he refused to take the chemical test he would get a hearing within 10 days.

State v. Michael G. Mertes, 2008 WI App 179, PFR filed 12/17/08
For Mertes: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether finding the sleeping occupant of a vehicle parked at a gas station, with engine off but key in the ignition, along with other factors sufficiently proved the OWI element of “operating.”

Holding:

¶13      Wisconsin Stat. § 346.63(3)(b) defines “operate” as “the physical manipulation or activation of any of the controls of a motor vehicle necessary to put it in motion.” Mertes’ argument focuses almost exclusively on the definition of “operation” under Wis.

State v. Thomas P. Tecza, 2008 WI App 79, PFR filed 5/22/08
For Tecza: Timothy P. Swatek

Issue: Whether a roadway within a gated community entry to which is guarded by a security station is “held out to the public for use of their motor vehicles” so as to support drunk driving conviction within § 346.61.

Holding:

¶18      … We read Phillips as inquiring into whether the premises were available for use to the public or “to a defined limited portion of the citizenry.”Richling,