 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Decker7/22/2004
Michael Decker appeals from judgments of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) second offense and for operating a motor vehicle while having a prohibited alcohol concentration second offense in violation of Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(a) and (b). He contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to exclude from evidence the results of an Intoximeter EC/IR breath test. Decker asserts that the Department of Transportation approved the instrument using "standards." He contends that these standards should have been established following proper rule-promulgation procedures under Wis. Stat. ch. 227, but were not.
. Both parties agree that this case raises the same legal issue and presents the same evidence as County of Dane v. Winsand, 2004 WI App 86, ____ Wis. 2d ____, 679 N.W.2d 885, where we said:
Winsand has not established that ... the section chief used standards that meet the definition of Wis. Stat. § 227.01(13) but were not promulgated as a rule. In addition, he does not argue that the section chief did not comply with § 343.305(6)(b) or with the regulations in Wis. Admin. Code § Trans 311. Accordingly, the test results are admissible under § 343.305(5)(d) with the benefits of Wis. Stat. § 885.235. The trial court therefore correctly denied Winsand's motion to exclude the test results.
Id., .
. We therefore affirm.
Page 1 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|