 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Rodenkirch6/24/2004
David G. Rodenkirch appeals a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, third offense, and operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration (PAC), third offense, and from an order denying his suppression motion. Rodenkirch argues that his motion to suppress the results of the chemical test should have been granted because the arresting officer had no reasonable suspicion to prolong his detention beyond the initial stop. Rodenkirch further argues that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to arrest him. We agree that the arresting officer had no reasonable suspicion to prolong Rodenkirch's detention and therefore reverse the judgment of conviction and suppression order.
FACTS
. The essential facts are undisputed. On June 26, 2002, Wisconsin State Trooper John W. Schick, while traveling westbound on U.S. Highway 12, observed two vehicles traveling eastbound. Both vehicles were traveling approximately at the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit. At approximately 3:20 a.m., Schick stopped the second eastbound vehicle, driven by Rodenkirch, for following too closely;*fn2 the distance between the two vehicles was approximately five feet.
. Upon approaching the truck, Schick noted Rodenkirch was the sole occupant of the truck. When asked if he was aware he was following the car ahead of him too closely, Rodenkirch responded that the car ahead of him was traveling too slowly. Schick smelled alcohol emanating from Rodenkirch's vehicle and, when asked, Rodenkirch admitted consuming two or three beers.
. Schick testified that prior to stopping Rodenkirch's vehicle, the truck did not cross the centerline, did not cross the fog line and did not weave in its own lane. Schick testified that Rodenkirch did not fumble for his driver's license, did not exhibit red, glassy or bloodshot eyes and his speech was not slurred. Schick testified that Rodenkirch was cooperative.
. Because it was raining very hard, Schick asked Rodenkirch to drive his truck approximately one-half mile to a gas station to perform field sobriety tests under a canopy. Rodenkirch agreed. Accordingly, Schick and Rodenkirch, each traveling in his own vehicle, met at the gas station to perform field sobriety tests. Schick testified that from the place of the initial stop to the canopy of the gas station, he did not observe the Rodenkirch vehicle travel either over the centerline or fog line or weave in its own lane of traffic.
. Once at the gas station, Schick asked Rodenkirch to exit his truck and perform the field sobriety tests. Rodenkirch had no difficulty getting out of his truck, did not hold onto the truck for balance and had no problems walking.
. The first field sobriety test was the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. During the administration of this test, Schick found Rodenkirch lacked smooth pursuit in each eye and found nystagmus at maximum deviation in each eye-indications of intoxication.
. The second field sobriety test was the walk-and-turn test. Schick testified that Rodenkirch began the walk-and-turn test before instructed, took eight steps rather than the instructed nine, turned improperly and stepped off the line twice. The final test was the one-leg stand. During this test, Rodenkirch put his foot down four times. Rodenkirch was ultimately arrested and transported to a local hospital where blood was drawn. The blood test revealed a blood alcohol concentration of .226 percent. Rodenkirch was eventually charged with OWI, third offense and PAC, third offense.
. On August 2, 2002, Rodenkirch filed a motion to suppress the results of the blood test. The trial court denied the motion. A jury trial
Page 1 2 3 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|