 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Town of Dunn v. Woodman9/16/1999
tify the reliability of the field sobriety tests in predicting unlawful BAC's does not convert all of the observations of a person's performance into scientific evidence. The police officer's observations of the field sobriety exercises, other than the HGN test, should be placed in the same category as other commonly understood signs of impairment, such as glassy or bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, staggering, flushed face, labile emotions, odor of alcohol or driving patterns. Id. at 831-32.
We agree with the reasoning of the Illinois and Florida courts. Wisconsin courts have long held that a lay witness may give an opinion as to whether a person was intoxicated at a particular time. See State v. Burkman, 96 Wis.2d 630, 645, 292 N.W.2d 641, 648 (1980); see also Kuroske v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 234 Wis. 394, 404, 291 N.W. 384, 388 (1940). There is no reason that a police officer's lay observations made during sobriety tests cannot be used to determine whether a person had probably been operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Probable cause determinations "are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent [people], not legal technicians, act." State v. Paszek, 50 Wis.2d 619, 625, 184 N.W.2d 836, 840 (1971) (quoting Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175 (1949)). Expert testimony will not help determine whether field sobriety tests are reliable in a probable cause determination.
By the Court. -- Order affirmed.
Not recommended for publication in the official reports. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)4, Stats.
Page 1 2 3 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|