On Point blog, page 18 of 24
Probable Cause – OWI Arrest
State v. Michael A. Barahona, 2010AP1324, District 4, 10/21/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Barahona: Walter A. Piel, Jr.; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶14 The undisputed facts as disclosed from the record reveal the following: (1) Marks observed Barahona’s vehicle driving in the wrong direction in the eastbound lane of Campus Drive; (2) Marks observed Barahona’s vehicle cross the dotted line dividing two lanes of traffic by approximately one foot and drive over that line for approximately one block when he was pulled over by Marks;
State v. Lee Anthony Batt, 2010 WI App 155
court of appeals decision (recommended for publication); for Batt: Chad A. Lanning; BiC; Resp.; Reply
OWI – Implied Consent Law – § 343.305(5)(a) Testing
Construing State v. Stary, 187 Wis. 2d 266, 522 N.W.2d 32 (Ct. App. 1994), the court concludes that the Implied Consent law affords the driver the right to choose testing administered by the law enforcement agency at no expense to the driver,
Implied Consent Law – Non-English-Speaking Driver
State v. Javier Galvin, 2010AP863-CR, District 2, 10/6/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Galvin: John S. Schiro, Keith Llanas; BiC; Resp.
Galvan, who had minimal ability to understand English, didn’t understand the implied consent warnings given to him in English. Because the arresting officer knew of Galvan’s limitation, and had indeed obtained the translation services of another officer at the time of arrest,
State v. David A. Dearborn, 2010 WI 84
Wisconsin supreme court decision, affirming 2008 WI App 131; for Dearborn: Eileen A. Hirsch,SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Search-Incident – Good-Faith Reliance on Judicial Precedent
¶2 Dearborn maintains, and the State concedes, that in the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S.
Search-Incident: Automobile; Sufficiency of Evidence: Manufacturing THC
State v. Timothy Charles Bauer, 2010 WI App 93; for Bauer: Catherine M. Canright; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Search-Incident – Automobile
By failing to address Bauer’s Arizona v. Gant argument, instead relying solely on State v. Fry, 131 Wis. 2d 153, 174, 388 N.W.2d 565 (1986), the States’ argument compels the court to reverse the suppression order:
¶9 Here,
Traffic Arrest – Probable Cause – Crossing Median
Village of Whitefish Bay v. David W. Czirr, No. 2010AP92, District I, 6/22/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Czirr: Rex Anderegg; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Driving across median, even for very brief period of time, establishes probable cause to arrest for traffic offense:
¶14 Next, Czirr does not specifically argue that momentarily being on top of the median cannot constitute a violation of WIS.
Probable Cause – OWI
Bradley K. Darwin, No. 2009AP2608-FT, District IV, 6/10/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Darwin: Bill Ginsberg; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶5 Darwin argues that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest him for OWI. The municipal court made the following findings of fact with respect to probable cause: Darwin signaled a turn, but failed to complete it; he denied drinking;
State v. Michael D. Sporle, 2009AP2737-CR, District IV, 4/29/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Sporle: Robert J. Jackson; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Implied Consent Procedure, § 343.305(2)
¶12 The officer complied with her obligations to provide the “Informing the Accused” information and to make an alternative test available. The officer informed Sporle that, if he took the requested test, he could have an alternative test free of charge,
State v. Kyle J. Graske, 2009AP1933-CR, District II, 3/24/2010
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.
Miranda – Suppressed Statement and Probable Cause
¶7 First, we will address the State’s argument that Kohel’s statement “[w]e just smoked an hour ago” was voluntary and should not be suppressed. The trial court found, and we agree, that Kohel’s statement was the result of a custodial interrogation and should be suppressed.
State v. Stephen A. Broad, 2009AP1983-CR, District II, 3/17/2010
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication) BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.
Traffic Arrest
Probable cause to believe Broad drove on public roadway, hence to arrest for OWI, where car was found off the road, Broad was in driver’s seat and admitted to being driver, car “was warm and running.”
Right to Testify
Violation of rule requiring contemporaneous colloquy as to waiver of right to testify at trial doesn’t lead to automatic reversal of conviction;