On Point blog, page 6 of 34
COA takes tough stand on Wisconsin’s accident reporting statute
County of Monroe v. Kling, 2022AP339, 12/30/22, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Section 346.70(1) governs a driver’s duty to report a car accident. When the accident does not cause injury or death, the driver must report the “total damage to property owned by any one person. . . to an apparent value of $1,000 or more” to the authorities by “the quickest means of communication.” There are no published opinions interpreting and applying this language. This decision construes it against drivers and affirms the civil forfeiture entered against Kling.
Defendant failed to make timely jury demand in OWI 1st case
Washington County v. Justin David Dettmering, 2022AP941, District 2, 12/21/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Dettmering didn’t demand a jury within the time indicated on the citation he was issued for OWI 1st, but he later claimed he should get a jury because he wasn’t advised of his right to a jury at his first court appearance as required by § 345.34(1). The court of appeals rejects his claim.
Extra information from officer about implied consent law didn’t make refusal proper
State v. Roman C. Ozimek, 2021AP452, District 3, 11/22/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Ozimek challenges the revocation of his driving privileges for refusing a blood draw after he was arrested for OWI. The court of appeals rejects his claim that the circuit court should have considered evidence that the officer misinformed Ozimek of his “constitutional right” to obtain his own chemical testing without having to first consent to the officer’s request for chemical testing.
Minor passenger in car operated by intoxicated driver is a “victim” for purposes of restitution statute
State v. Mark J. Gahart, 2022 WI App 61; case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals holds that driving while intoxicated with a minor passenger is not a victimless crime: the minor passenger is a victim for purposes of the restitution statute.
COA finds sufficient evidence of boating while intoxicated
State v. Jeffrey S. Wein, 2021AP1696-98, 9/7/22, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publications) case activity (including briefs)
Wein appeals convictions of three civil offenses arising from what the state says was his driving of a pontoon boat while he was drunk. The only issue for each charge is whether he, rather than someone else on the boat, was driving.
SCOW holds previous blood-draw refusals can’t be OWI “priors”
State v. Scott William Forrett, 19AP1850, 2022 WI 37, 6/3/2022, affirming a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
In 1996, the state revoked Scott Forrett’s driver’s license under Wis. Stat. § 303.305(10) because he refused a blood test for alcohol. Under the state’s statutory scheme of progressive punishment for OWIs, that revocation counts the same as a prior conviction for drunk driving would. The state supreme court now holds this statutory scheme unconstitutional, saying it imposes increased criminal penalties on those who assert their Fourth Amendment right to refuse a warrantless blood draw. This means that Forrett’s conviction in the case before the court–for an OWI from 2017–is a sixth, not a seventh, offense.
Driver’s prior IID order hadn’t expired, so his prohibited alcohol concentration was 0.02, not 0.08
State v. Dominic A. Caldiero, 2021AP1163-CR, District 4, 4/28/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
When he drove in 2019, Caldiero was still “subject to” a 2015 court order under § 343.301 (2013-14) restricting his operating privilege to cars with an ignition interlock device (IID) because the time period on that restriction does not begin to run till DOT issues him a driver’s license, and that hadn’t happened as of the date he was driving.
Police had probable cause to arrest for operating with a restricted controlled substance
Forest County v. Brian M. Steinert, 2020AP1465, District 3, 1/19/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Steinert challenged his refusal citation on the ground the police didn’t have probable cause to arrest him, see § 343.305(9)(a)5.a. The court of appeals rejects his challenge.
Police had probable cause to arrest for OWI for purposes of refusal statute
State v. Taras O. Haliw, 2021AP1095, District 4, 1/13/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Haliw argues his license shouldn’t be revoked for refusing a chemical test for alcohol because the police didn’t have probable cause to arrest him for OWI, see § 343.305(9)(a)5.a. The court of appeals rejects his argument.
Defense win: Modification to standard jury instruction on driving while impaired by drugs relieved state of burden of proof
State v. Carl Lee McAdory, 2021 WI App 89; case activity (including briefs)
McAdory was charged with driving with a detectable amount of restricted controlled substances—cocaine and THC—and driving under the influence of those substances. At trial, the state convinced the trial judge to modify the standard jury instruction for the latter charge, Wis. J.I.—Criminal 2664, by deleting the statement that not every person who has consumed controlled substances is “under the influence.” This modification, coupled with the prosecutor’s closing argument that it had proven its case by proving McAdory had a detectable amount of the substances, effectively relieved the state of its burden to prove that McAdory was “under the influence.”