 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] State v. Rucks3/13/2003
. Clifford Rucks appeals the circuit court order denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a blood draw and his subsequent judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OMVWI), contrary to Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(a), third offense. Because we conclude that there is nothing in the arguments presented in this appeal that bears on the circuit court's judgment of conviction for a violation of § 346.63(1)(a), we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
BACKGROUND
. On September 4, 2000, at approximately 1:12 a.m., Deputy Robert Werren of the Green County Sheriff's Department observed a black GMC truck swerve in its lane of traffic. Werren followed the truck as it traveled north on the highway and again observed it veer over the center lane before swerving back into its traffic lane. Werren activated his emergency lights, stopped the vehicle and approached Rucks. Rucks appeared very upset about the traffic stop but was able to locate his driver's license. Werren then asked Rucks if he had been drinking and Rucks responded, "Yes, I've had a little." Werren noticed that Rucks's eyes were glassy and blood shot, his speech was slurred and that he smelled heavily of intoxicants. Rucks agreed to perform field sobriety tests and exited his vehicle.
. Werren first conducted the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. Next, Werren instructed Rucks to recite the alphabet; Rucks stopped at the letter "G" and stated, "I guess I've forgotten it." Werren then asked Rucks to complete the walk and turn test. After Rucks failed to successfully complete the three tests, Werren asked him to submit to a preliminary breath test. Rucks refused and Werren arrested him for OMVWI. Werren then transported Rucks to the Monroe Clinic emergency room for a blood draw. Rucks was read the Informing the Accused Form and asked to submit a sample of his blood for testing. Rucks agreed and the blood draw produced a blood alcohol level of .170, a prohibited alcohol concentration (PAC) for a driver of a motor vehicle under Wisconsin law, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(b).
. Rucks moved to suppress the results of the blood test. The court denied his motion, and he pled no contest to OMVWI based on a stipulation of facts.
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review.
. The facts relevant to Rucks's conviction were stipulated. Therefore, whether those facts and the legal arguments presented on appeal require reversal is a question of law that we review de novo. See Monroe County v. Kruse, 76 Wis. 2d 126, 128, 250 N.W.2d 375, 376 (1977).
Conviction.
. Rucks appeals his judgment of conviction for OMVWI, a violation of Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(a). Rucks alleges that the conviction is invalid because the blood draw and the subsequent chemical analysis of his blood violated his Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Although Rucks consented to the blood draw, he now argues that his consent was coerced by the threatened sanction of a loss of driving privileges. Stated differently, Rucks challenges the constitutionality of Wisconsin's implied consent law, Wis. Stat. § 343.305(2), and thereby, his conviction.
. In order to sustain its burden of proof for the OMVWI conviction, the prosecution was required to establish that (1) Rucks was operating a vehicle on the highway and (2) Rucks was under the influence of intoxicants. Kruse, 76 Wis. 2d at 131, 250 N.W.2d at 377. The supreme court has recognized that a driver may have a PAC according to the terms of Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(b), but not be under the influence of an intoxicant. State v. Bohacheff, 114 Wis. 2d 402, 415-16, 338
Page 1 2 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|