 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Austin11/17/2004
On the night of October 16, 2003, Angela Kuopus was driving on Port Washington Road in Mequon when she observed another vehicle cross the center line long before it was to make a turn and nearly go into a ditch. Kuopus decided to follow the vehicle and to contact the police department. Kuopus informed the dispatcher that she would follow the car until the police department could have an officer meet up with her. Kuopus followed the vehicle for approximately seven minutes and observed "erratic driving," such as driving on the wrong side of the road, speeding up and slowing down, turning the headlights off and switching on turn signals at inappropriate times. Eventually, the driver of the vehicle pulled into a driveway in front of a house, parked the car and headed for the house. The police arrived approximately one to two minutes later; Kuopus answered a couple questions and left.
. City of Mequon police officer, Mark Riley, was dispatched to do follow-up of Kuopus' complaint of an erratic driver who appeared to be intoxicated. When Riley arrived on the scene, at least one other officer had spoken with Kuopus and informed Riley that Kuopus was the informant and was willing to provide a written statement. The officers then walked up to the residence and knocked on the door. Austin's wife, Judith Austin, answered the door. Judith permitted the officers to enter the residence. The officers asked Judith to restrain her dog, which she did. When the officers informed Judith that they were there to speak to the driver of the vehicle, Judith immediately directed the officers into the residence and showed them to Austin.
. The officers approached Austin. When they were within a couple of feet of him, they identified themselves and informed him why they were at the residence. Austin immediately and profanely told the officers to get out of the house. While speaking with Austin, Riley detected a strong odor of intoxicant about the whole entire room, he noticed that Austin's speech was slurred and Austin had very bloodshot glossy eyes.
. The officers spoke with Austin for a total of seven to ten minutes. He continued to ask the officers to leave throughout the conversation. During that time, the officers asked him to perform field sobriety tests; Austin profanely refused. Based on his observations, Riley determined that Austin was under the influence of alcohol and placed him under arrest. Riley then transported Austin to a hospital where he read Austin the Informing the Accused form. When Riley asked him if he would submit to an evidentiary chemical test of his blood, Austin responded "No." Riley then issued him a Notice of Intent to Revoke Operating Privileges.
. On October 27, Austin requested a refusal hearing. On December 15, Austin filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained at the scene of his detention and arrest and evidence procured following the detention and arrest, arguing that Riley did not have probable cause to arrest.
. The trial court conducted the refusal hearing on January 12, 2004. Kuopus, Judith and Riley all testified at the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, Austin argued that the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct the stop nor did they have probable cause to arrest. He maintained that Kuopus was an unreliable citizen informant and the information she provided to the police could not form the basis for reasonable suspicion. He also argued that Judith did not consent to the police entering her home and even if she did, Austin revoked that consent and any information obtained following his revocation could not be used in the court's probable cause determination.
. The trial court rejected Austin's arguments, concludin
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.
|
|