 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] State v. Rupp4/3/2003
. Bryan Rupp 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), second offense. Because we conclude that there is nothing in the arguments presented on 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 August 20, 1999, at approximately 6:24 p.m., officer Daniel Bandi of the Green County Sheriff's Department observed a vehicle traveling at extremely slow speed down a hill. Bandi then observed the vehicle cross the center line and move back into its lane of traffic in a fast and jerky motion. Bandi followed the vehicle for a short distance and watched as it continued to swerve in its lane of traffic, at one point coming within two to three feet of striking a parked vehicle. Bandi activated his emergency lights and siren, stopped the vehicle and approached Rupp. Bandi immediately smelled a very strong odor of intoxicants coming from inside the car. He asked Rupp for his driver's license and noticed that Rupp struggled to remove his wallet from his back pocket. Bandi also noticed that Rupp's speech was extremely slurred and that his eyes were glassy and bloodshot. Bandi asked Rupp to exit the vehicle and perform field sobriety tests, Rupp agreed.
. Bandi first conducted the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. Next, Bandi instructed Rupp to complete the walk and turn test; Rupp lost his balance, side stepped and missed each of the nine heel-to-toe steps by at least eight inches. Bandi then instructed Rupp to complete the one leg stand test. Rupp attempted to raise his foot off the ground but immediately lost his balance and informed Bandi that he was unable to perform the test because of a mosquito bite. Bandi agreed to "try something else." Bandi then instructed Rupp to perform the count down test; Bandi observed Rupp sway in a circular motion as he counted down from 37 to 16. Finally, Bandi instructed Rupp to complete the Romberg balance test. Based on Rupp's poor performance on the sobriety tests, Bandi arrested him for OMVWI. Bandi read Rupp the Informing the Accused form, as required by Wis. Stat. § 343.305(4), and asked him to submit a sample of his blood for testing. Rupp refused. Blood was drawn from Rupp, which produced a blood alcohol level of .297, a prohibited alcohol concentration (PAC) for a driver of a motor vehicle under Wisconsin law, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(b).
. Rupp 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 Rupp'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.
. Rupp appeals his judgment of conviction for OMVWI, a violation of Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(a). Rupp 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. Rupp argues that his blood was seized without a warrant and that the threatened sanction of a loss of driving privileges for refusing to submit to a chemical test for intoxication invalidates his consent to the blood analysis for Fourth Amendment purposes. Stated different
Page 1 2 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|