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

State v. William K. Nord, 2001 WI App 48, 241 Wis. 2d 387, 625 N.W.2d 302
For Nord: Timothy J. O’Brien

Issue: Whether the implied consent statute, § 343.305(4) violates due process by providing misleading information regarding the consequences for taking or refusing the test.

Holding: The warning that the motorist “will be subject to other penalties” beyond revocation doesn’t overstate the consequences for refusal, because refusal can result in substance assessment,

State v. Henry T. Skibinski, 2001 WI App 109, 244 Wis. 2d 229, 629 N.W.2d 12
For Skibinski: Karma S. Rodgers

Issue: Whether a trial court can, after findings of guilt on second and third offense OWI, apply the increased penalties of OWI-3rd to both offenses at sentencing.

Holding: For several reasons, the sentence for OWI-2nd was limited to the applicable penalty for that discrete offense, even though the defendant was simultaneously being sentenced for OWI-3rd: a prior conviction is an element of OWI,

State v. William P. Eckola, 2001 WI App 295
For Eckola: Gregory A. Parker

Issue: Whether the trial court erroneously exercised discretion by placing Eckola on probation for OWI-6th without requiring confinement for at least the presumptive minimum mandated by § 346.65(2)(e).

Holding:

¶15. When the circuit court, in its discretion, determines that a defendant will be placed on probation, Wis. Stat. § 973.09(1)(d) requires that the person be confined for at least the mandatory minimum period.

State v. Lisa A. Carter, 229 Wis. 2d 200, 598 N.W.2d 619 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Carter: Paul G. LaZotte

Holding: Hit-and-run, § 346.67, applies to “premises held out to the public for use of their motor vehicles.” The event occurred at a closed gas station; the court holds the element satisfied: ” … The premises is bordered by two city streets and abuts an alley in the rear.

State v. Jack E. Thurk, 224 Wis.2d 662, 592 N.W.2d 1 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Thurk: Christopher A. Mutschler

Holding: Following a vehicular homicide the culpable driver voluntarily accompanied an officer to the station and submitted to a chemical blood test. He seeks suppression, on the ground that he was denied a request for a breathalyzer as an alternate test. The COA rejects the argument, holding that he had no right to the alternate test because he wasn’t under arrest.

State v. Dennis J. Reitter, 227 Wis.2d 213, 595 N.W.2d 646 (1999), on certification
For Reitter: Michael C. Witt, Monogue & Witt, S.C.

¶3 … where a defendant expresses no confusion about his or her understanding of the statute, a defendant constructively refuses to take a breathalyzer test when he or she repeatedly requests to speak with an attorney in lieu of submitting to the test. We also hold that because the implied consent law creates statutory privileges,