On Point blog, page 1 of 7
COA again finds that consent to blood draw was valid, distinguishing Blackman
State v. Justin Dennis Krizan, 2022AP1341-CR, 3/4/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication), case activity
Applying its recent holding in State v. Gore, 2025 WI App 11, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.3d ___ (see our post on Gore here), the COA concludes that Krizan’s consent to a blood draw was voluntary because he was not misinformed about the consequences of refusing to consent.
COA affirms denial of suppression in OWI, concludes police had probable cause to arrest
City of Delafield v. Shawn M. Office, 2024AP227, 2/26/25 District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms Office’s OWI 1st conviction, concluding that his arrest was supported by probable cause because sufficient evidence existed to reasonably believe that Office been driving while under the influence of an intoxicant.
COA affirms denial of suppression motion, but reminds state of basic briefing rules
State v. Mitchell D. Butschle, 2023AP2120-CR, 5/8/24, District II (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
On appeal from a conviction for operating with a detectable controlled substance, the court rejects Butschle’s claims that police lacked probable cause to arrest. The court affirms because “there were enough indicators of impairment to satisfy probable cause to arrest, including (1) “a strong odor of alcohol,” (2) “Butschle’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy,” (3) “the stop occurred just after 2:00 a.m., which is bar time,” and (4) “Butschle failed the HGN test and showed balance indicators on the other two [FSTs].” Op., ¶¶10-11.
COA holds there was probable cause for OWI given admission of drinking up to twelve beers, slurred speech, inability to stand, and .198 PBT (among other evidence)
State v. Nicholas Allen Paulson, 2022AP186, 2/21/24, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
Although Paulson tries to establish that police did not have probable cause to arrest him despite, among other evidence, a PBT reading of .198, COA affirms.
COA knocks down straw man and affirms denial of defendant’s motion to suppress
State v. Linsey Nichole Howard, 2022AP1608-CR, District 2, 03/08/2023, (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication) case activity
Prior to pleading guilty to operating a vehicle with a restricted, controlled substance as a second offense, Howard filed a motion to suppress, claiming that the arresting officer lacked probable cause. The court of appeals affirms the denial of Howard’s motion based on the following circumstances: (1) she was driving at 12:53 a.m. without headlights on, (2) she was confused about where she was coming from and where she was going, (3) she appeared nervous, (4) she avoided eye contact, and (5) she failed the HGN field sobriety test (4) . (Opinion, ¶11).
Police had probable cause to arrest for OWI
State v. Andrew Austin Keenan-Becht, 2022AP73-CR, District 2, 8/3/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Under the long-standing test for probable cause, Keenan-Becht’s arrest was lawful.
COA rejects defendant’s changed story, affirms probable cause for OWI
State v. Smolarek, 6/16/22, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Smolarek was involved in a motorcycle accident. After allegedly admitting that he had smoked marijuana much earlier that day, an officer arrested him. A blood test showed that he had been driving under the influence of THC. Smolarek moved to suppress arguing that the officer got his story wrong. He admitted that he had smoked marijuana after the accident. So the officer lacked probable cause to arrest him.
Counsel wasn’t ineffective in OWI/PAC prosecution
State v. Eric Trygve Kothbauer, 2020AP1406-CR, District 3, 5/3/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Kothbauer challenges his trial lawyer’s representation in a prosecution for operating while intoxicated and with a prohibited alcohol concentration. The court of appeals holds trial counsel wasn’t deficient or, even if he was, the deficiency wasn’t prejudicial.
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.
Circuit court’s finding of refusal upheld
State v. Derek V. Schroth, 2021AP733, District 2, 8/25/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Schroth challenges the probable cause to arrest him for OWI and the finding that he refused a blood draw. There were ample facts for probable cause. (¶¶3-8, 13-15). And though the arresting officer couldn’t recall whether Schroth said “no” or “something else” when asked to submit to a blood draw,