 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] City of Elkhorn v. St. John8/27/2003
. We do not reach the substantive issues raised by Jane St. John because her no contest plea to operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), first offense, waives her challenge that the arresting officer waited an unreasonable length of time to make a traffic stop. Therefore, we affirm her conviction for drunk driving.
. The facts and history of this case are undisputed. After being charged with her first offense OWI, Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(a), and operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration, § 346.63(1)(b), St. John brought a motion seeking to dismiss the citations. In her motion, she contended that the arresting officer's failure to immediately stop her after observing her make an unusual stop on a city street resulted in the evaporation of probable cause for a traffic stop. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied her motion. St. John then entered a no contest plea to the charge of OWI and the court imposed a sentence consistent with the sentencing scheme for a first offense drunk driving .
. On appeal, St. John acknowledges that her plea of no contest after losing her motion to dismiss would normally invoke the guilty plea waiver rule and prevent this court from considering her appeal. She urges us to use our discretion to consider her appeal, contending that the failure of the arresting officer to stop her immediately after observing her unsafe driving presents a sufficiently unique fact situation that is deserving of appellate review. Of course, the City of Elkhorn urges us to invoke the guilty plea waiver rule because this is very much "run of the mill."
. It is a general principle of law that a "guilty plea, made knowingly and voluntarily, waives all non-jurisdictional defects and defenses, including alleged violations of constitutional rights prior to the plea." State v. Aniton, 183 Wis. 2d 125, 129, 515 N.W.2d 302 (Ct. App. 1994). A no contest plea is the equivalent of a guilty plea, and waives the right to raise non-jurisdictional defects and defenses, including claimed violations of constitutional rights. County of Racine v. Smith, 122 Wis. 2d 431, 434, 362 N.W.2d 439 (Ct. App. 1984). In criminal cases, an exception exists for orders denying motions to suppress evidence or motions challenging the admissibility of a statement of a defendant. Wis. Stat. § 971.31(10). That exception, however, does not apply to civil forfeiture matters. Smith, 122 Wis. 2d at 436.
. Waiver, however, is not a jurisdictional bar to an appeal, but rather a principle of judicial administration. In first offense OWI matters, this court may consider: (1) the administrative efficiencies resulting from the plea, (2) whether an adequate record has been developed, (3) whether the appeal appears motivated by the severity of the sentence, and (4) the nature of the potential issue. County of Ozaukee v. Quelle, 198 Wis. 2d 269, 275-76, 542 N.W.2d 196 (Ct. App. 1995).
. St. John's argument for not applying the guilty plea waiver rule is unpersuasive. We acknowledge that the first three reasons might apply as well in the present case as they did in Quelle. The fourth reason, however, is simply not present here. St. John proposes that if an officer observes erratic driving that rises to the level of reasonable suspicion but waits to make an investigatory stop until the officer can insure the safety of the driver, the officer and the public, the reasonable suspicion to justify the stop evaporates. We have failed to find any support for St. John's proposition in our research. Further, such a proposition would seriously compromise Wisconsin's long running crusade against drunk drivers.
Drunk driving is indiscriminate in the personal traged
Page 1 2 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|