 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Marshall2/5/2002
(1973) (court will reject statutory interpretation that renders absurd result).
. Under the statutory scheme, a refusal is "immediately" met with a powerful response, see Wis. Stat. § 343.305(9)(a)-the virtual certainty of license revocation, and the virtual certainty that, in the event of a drunk driving trial, the jury will receive compelling evidence of guilt. Indeed, many seasoned prosecutors consider evidence of a refusal to be more powerful, and much less susceptible to impeachment, than evidence of blood-alcohol concentration.
. Thus, when police promptly respond to a refusal as the statute dictates, they lose nothing in their fight against drunk driving . See Scales v. State, 64 Wis. 2d 485, 494, 219 N.W.2d 286 (1974) (implied consent law must not be construed to "inhibit the ability of the state to remove drunken drivers from the highway"). Indeed, they gain. Rather than prolonging their encounter with an arrestee and risking violence by threatening to strap or otherwise compel, officers who "immediately" respond as the statute dictates, will: (1) promptly trigger license revocation; (2) effectively establish evidence of the refusal, so utterly convincing to a jury; and (3) expeditiously complete their duties with that drunk driver and return to the streets to arrest the next one.
. No wonder, therefore, that the supreme court has advised that, upon hearing a refusal, an officer should "respond to defendants in a manner that is both direct and polite." Reitter, 227 Wis. 2d at 231. No wonder, therefore, that the legislature mandated that "the law enforcement officer," upon a refusal, "shall immediately take possession of the person's license and prepare a notice to revoke," Wis. Stat. § 343.305(9)(a), not that the law enforcement officer shall strap the suspect and have blood forcibly withdrawn.
. " t is for the legislature," not the appellate courts, "to add to the statutory scheme." See Reitter, 227 Wis. 2d at 230. "Inasmuch as the implied consent law is a statutory creation, it is the legislature ... which should impose duties upon officers in the implied consent setting." Id. at 217-18. Likewise, it is the legislature, if it sees fit to do so, that could offer officers the option of strapping a suspect and forcing a blood test.
. But do we really want blood? Do we really want to erase the Miranda-like bright line demarcating an officer's singular and "immediate" response? Do we really want to force every Wisconsin law enforcement officer to decide whether to force refusing drunk drivers to submit to a blood test? Do we really want to allow the legal framework for combative citizen-police confrontations, and to require medical personnel to draw blood from resistive drunk drivers?
. Hopefully, the supreme court will perceive this court's dangerous mistakes. Hopefully, the supreme court will wince at the prospect of police regularly restraining drunk drivers and delivering them to medical personnel for forcible blood draws. And hopefully, the supreme court will restore the statutory bright line, which protects law enforcement officers and, at the same time, strengthens the fair and effective prosecution of drunk drivers.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|