 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Morrissey4/4/2000
, further illuminates the logic of this court's conclusion in the instant appeal. Under the present statutory scheme, a refusal is "immediately" met with a powerful response-the virtual certainty of license revocation, and the virtual certainty that, in the event of a trial on the underlying offense, the fact-finder will receive compelling evidence of the defendant's 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 confrontation or violence by threatening to "strap down" or compel the person in some other way, 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 judge and jury; and (3) expeditiously complete their responsibility with the arrestee and return to the streets to arrest the next drunk driver. 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.
. Accordingly, this court reverses the judgment and remands the case to the trial court. According to the stipulation, Morrissey refused to submit to a blood test, and the police failed to respond to his refusal according to the statutory dictates. Therefore, should the case go to trial, the State would not be allowed to introduce evidence of the blood test results, but would be permitted to introduce evidence that Morrissey refused to submit to the test. See Wis. Stat. § 343.305(4).
By the Court. -- Judgment reversed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.
Page 1 2 3 4 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|