 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Eau Claire County v. Knuth12/30/1999
the sole issue a review of a suppression motion." Id. at 275, 542 N.W.2d at 198. We also acknowledge that "this does not appear to be a case where the defendant took a chance on a more lenient sentence," and that Knuth's offense, like Quelle's, is a "garden-variety first offender driving while intoxicated case." Id. at 275-76, 542 N.W.2d at 198. Unlike the circumstance in Quelle, however, the issue Knuth wishes to raise in this appeal was not "squarely presented before the trial court." Id. at 275, 542 N.W.2d at 198.
. The issue, as Knuth frames it in this appeal, is whether the arresting officer had probable cause for her arrest before administering the PBT. In making her arguments, she relies heavily on our opinion in County of Jefferson v. Renz, 222 Wis.2d 424, 588 N.W.2d 267 (Ct. App. 1998), rev'd, No. 97-3512 (Wis. Dec. 22, 1999). We decided Renz on October 15, 1998, almost six months prior to the hearing on Knuth's motion to suppress, which was conducted on March 26, 1999. There is no indication in the record, however, that Knuth cited Renz to the trial court, or that she argued in the trial court that the administration of the PBT was improper because the deputy lacked probable cause to arrest her for OMVWI before asking Knuth to submit to the PBT.
. Knuth did object at one point during the deputy's testimony that there was insufficient foundation to admit evidence of the PBT result. The court concluded that the County had presented a sufficient basis for the deputy to testify regarding the administration of the PBT and its result. However, at the conclusion of the hearing, the sum total of Knuth's argument was: "We just don't think there was enough probable cause, Your Honor, to arrest." Had Knuth articulated to the trial court the Renz-based argument she now presents to us, the trial court would have had the opportunity to make explicit findings and conclusions regarding the presence or absence of probable cause prior to the administration of the PBT. As the record stands, we do not have the benefit of a trial court decision on the issue Knuth would have us decide. In short, the issue of the allegedly improper administration of the PBT under this court's holding in Renz was not "squarely presented before the trial court." Cf. State v. Rogers, 196 Wis.2d 817, 827, 539 N.W.2d 897, 901 (Ct. App. 1995) ("We will not ... blindside trial courts with reversals based on theories which did not originate in their forum.").
. We also note that the fourth reason mentioned in Quelle for reviewing a forfeited issue is not present in this case. We said in Quelle that there were no published cases "applying the pertinent language" from a recent supreme court case, implying that a published opinion from our court would be helpful to bench and bar. See Quelle, 198 Wis.2d at 276, 542 N.W.2d at 198. This is a one-judge appeal under § 752.31(c), Stats., and this opinion will thus not be published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)4, Stats. Knuth has not requested that the case be converted to a three-judge appeal so that a published opinion might result. We also conclude that the present case does not merit our own request for its conversion to a three-judge appeal. Thus, the present appeal cannot yield a helpful precedent, as we concluded was the case in Quelle.
. In summary, Knuth forfeited her right to challenge the denial of her suppression motion when she entered a plea of guilty to the charge of OMVWI under the Eau Claire traffic ordinance, a civil forfeiture action. We are not convinced that reasons exist for us to forgo the forfeiture rule in this case.
. Knuth asserts that it "would be unfortunate for her to now be denied the opportunity to have the suppression mo
Page 1 2 3 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|