 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Greene3/15/2000
Cornelia G. Clark Acting Clerk, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports.
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 Waukesha County: ROGER P. MURPHY, Judge. Affirmed.
.
Daniel Greene appeals from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(a). The judgment followed a jury's guilty verdict.
. On appeal, Greene challenges the trial court's ruling rejecting his motion to suppress evidence of a blood sample obtained from him following his arrest. We hold that the police had reasonable suspicion to believe that Greene's blood contained evidence of a crime pursuant to State v. Seibel, 163 Wis. 2d 164, 471 N.W.2d 226 (1991). We also reject Greene's argument that certain expert testimony exceeded the scope of his discovery demand. Finally, we reject Greene's argument that the State engaged in improper argument to the jury. We affirm the judgment of conviction.
. We will recite the relevant facts as we discuss the issues.
1. Reasonable Suspicion that Greene's Blood Contained
Evidence of a Crime
. Greene brought a motion to suppress evidence of a blood test which the police obtained following his arrest on an outstanding warrant. We take the facts from the hearing on the motion to suppress.
. Wisconsin State Trooper Samuel White observed Greene's car speeding as it passed him in the city of Waukesha on June 19, 1996, at approximately 11:00 a.m. White observed no other erratic driving. He followed Greene's vehicle as it pulled into a nearby parking lot.
. White then spoke with Greene about the speeding incident. He did not notice anything unusual about Greene's speech. However, Greene did drop his driver's license as he attempted to hand it to White. While Greene waited in the squad car, White ran a record check and discovered that there was an outstanding warrant for Greene's arrest. As a result, White arrested Greene. While handcuffing Greene, White noticed an odor of alcohol on Greene's breath. He also noticed that Greene's eyes were "bloodshot, a little glassy." Under questioning, Greene stated that he had been out drinking the night before. Later, while Greene was still in the squad car, White described the odor of intoxicants as "quite strong." Besides the arrest warrant, White told Greene that he also was under arrest for OWI.
. White then transported Greene to Waukesha Memorial Hospital where he read Greene the "Informing the Accused" form pursuant to the Implied Consent Law. See Wis. Stat. § 343.305(4). Following this, Greene agreed to submit to a blood test. The analysis of the sample produced a blood alcohol concentration of 0.14%.
. Greene brought a motion to suppress the blood test result. He argued that White did not have reasonable suspicion, as required by Seibel, to believe that his blood contained evidence of a crime. The trial court denied the motion. Greene renews this argument on appeal.
. We begin with an important concession made by the State at the suppression hearing. Although White arrested Greene for OWI as well as for the outstanding warrant, the State conceded at the outset of the suppression hearing that White did not have probable cause to arrest Greene for OWI. In light of that concession, the State could not justify the drawing of Gree
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|