 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Huling8/24/2000
A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62.
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Sauk County: VIRGINIA WOLFE, Judge.
Affirmed.
. Molli Huling appeals from a judgment convicting her of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant (OMVWI) pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(a) (1997-98). She was convicted after the trial court denied her motion to suppress the results of a blood alcohol test and other evidence. She argues that without a field sobriety test or preliminary breath test (PBT), the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest her. We conclude that the officer had probable cause to arrest Huling, and therefore affirm.
BACKGROUND
. In the early morning of December 13, 1998, Huling and her companion were involved in a one-vehicle traffic accident. Deputy Sheriff James Hodges responded to the scene of the accident at approximately 5:13 a.m. Huling's car had hit a tree and there were a few skid marks on the road. Hodges concluded that the accident was probably due to inattentive driving.
. After the accident, Huling and her companion had left the accident scene and encountered a Lake Delton police officer. Emergency Medical Technicians took Huling and her companion by ambulance to a hospital. Hodges went to the hospital, and the EMT's informed him that they had smelled a strong odor of intoxicants coming from both Huling and her companion. They also told Hodges that Huling informed them that she had consumed approximately two drinks per hour over a period of five hours. Hodges spoke to Huling at the hospital but was unable to smell any alcohol because he had a head cold. Huling informed Hodges that she had been drinking since 11:00 p.m. the previous night and had consumed six drinks. Hodges did not perform any field sobriety tests because Huling was immobilized on a longboard. Hodges subsequently advised Huling that she was under arrest for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicants. He requested that the lab technician perform a blood draw which showed an alcohol content of .129 percent, above Wisconsin's legal limit of .10 percent. See Wis. Stat. § 340.01(46m)(a).
. Huling moved to suppress the blood test results and other evidence. The trial court found that Hodges had probable cause to arrest Huling and denied the motion. Huling was subsequently convicted of operating a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants. She appeals.
DISCUSSION
. Huling contends that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to arrest her for OMVWI. She asserts that the officer only suspected that she had operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated, which did not justify her arrest, and that the officer should first have used a PBT. See County of Jefferson v. Renz, 231 Wis. 2d 293, 310, 603 N.W.2d 541 (1999). She contends that the officer never saw any signs of intoxication nor did he have any information from other sources that her driving was impaired.
. Whether the facts of a given case constitute probable cause to arrest is a question of law that we decide without deference to the trial court. See State v. Kasian, 207 Wis. 2d 611, 621, 558 N.W.2d 687 (Ct. App. 1996). "Probable cause is a common-sense determination. It is judged by the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable people, not legal technicians, act." State v. Griffin, 220 Wis. 2d 371, 386, 584 N.W.2d 127 (Ct. App. 1998). Probable cause to arrest refers to the quantum of evidence which would lead a reasonable police officer
Page 1 2 3 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|