 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Young3/6/2002
. John B. Young appeals from an order revoking his driving privileges for one year. Young contends that the arresting officer failed to comply with the standardized field sobriety testing requirements established in the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) training manual; therefore, the officer did not have probable cause to request Young to submit to an evidentiary test of his blood. This court concludes that there is no legal authority in Wisconsin that stands for the proposition that only the field sobriety tests approved by the NHTSA must be given or that the results must match the results described in the NHTSA manual before an arresting officer has sufficient probable cause to request a driver to submit to a chemical test of his or her blood.
. Young's second contention is that his fear of needles is a reasonable basis to refuse to submit to a blood draw and the circuit court erred in holding that his refusal was unreasonable. This court concludes that an arresting officer is not required to consider a lawfully arrested driver's request for an alternative test. Absent a reasonable objection, the officer has the authority to decline to administer the alternate test requested by the driver. Because Young's objection for refusing a blood draw was not reasonable, the circuit court's order is affirmed.
. Town of East Troy police officer Daniel Heidelmeier was operating stationary radar at 1:43 a.m. on July 4, 2001, when he clocked a vehicle traveling sixty-three miles per hour in a forty-five mile per hour posted speed zone. Heidelmeier pursued the vehicle, which stopped within a reasonable time. The officer approached the driver's side and identified Young as the driver. Heidelmeier asked Young where he was coming from and when Young responded that he was returning from Summerfest in Milwaukee, the officer detected a strong odor of intoxicants. In response to the inevitable question of when he had his last drink, Young answered approximately one hour earlier. After conducting a driver's license check and a vehicle registration check, Heidelmeier asked Young to step out of the car to perform field sobriety tests. At that time, the officer noticed that Young's eyes were somewhat watery and bloodshot. The officer also noted that Young's speech was slow and slurred.
. Heidelmeier administered three field sobriety tests-horizontal gaze nystagmus, walk and turn, and one-leg stand-and Young failed to perform any of the tests to the officer's standards. After Young refused to submit to a preliminary breath test, Heidelmeier arrested him for operating while under the influence of an intoxicant (OMVWI), placed him in the squad car and drove to Lakeland Medical Center in Elkhorn for a blood draw. At the hospital, the officer read the Informing the Accused form to Young and asked if he would submit to an evidentiary chemical test of his blood; Young refused. Through an offer of proof, it was established that Young refused to submit to a blood test because of unspecified "concerns with respect to needles" and offered to submit to any other chemical test.
. Young timely filed a demand for a refusal hearing. Before the refusal hearing was held, he was found not guilty in a bench trial in the municipal court for East Troy. At the conclusion of testimony, the circuit court concluded that Heidelmeier properly administered the three field sobriety tests to Young and obtained results that, along with the officer's observations, amounted to probable cause to arrest Young. The court also found that it was not Young's option which chemical test he would take; therefore, the court held that his refusal was unreasonable.
. Young appeals the dec
Page 1 2 3 4 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|