 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Manke3/30/2000
ingle-sentence assertion that affirmance is required as a result of our statement in City of Waupaca v. Javorski, 198 Wis. 2d 563, 543 N.W.2d 507 (Ct. App. 1995), to the effect that the defendant had not persuaded us in that case that "a procedural failure in the application of the provisions of the implied consent law dealing with license suspension following an incriminating chemical test is an error of constitutional proportions-or even one that can (or should) render the test results inadmissible at the trial on the underlying charge." Id. at 573. The State doesn't discuss the case further. It doesn't set forth the facts, nor does it explain what element or elements of Wis. Stat. § 343.305(4) (1997-98) were not complied with in Javorski. We have often said that we will decline to review undeveloped arguments that are supported only by "general statements" in a party's brief. State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992). And even if we could infer that the State was arguing that Javorski should somehow be taken as overruling or creating an exception to our clear holding in Geraldson, the argument is unavailing. First, the supreme court has said that we lack the authority to overrule our prior published opinions. Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 189-90, 560 N.W.2d 246 (1997). Second, we don't see how a later case can be said to have created an exception to a rule adopted in an earlier case when the earlier case is not even mentioned, much less discussed, in the later case.
. Finally, we note that, had Manke been informed of the consequences regarding his commercial driver's license, he may have decided to refuse the test. Thus, there was a causal nexus between the officer's failing to read the commercial-license provisions of the implied consent law and Manke's decision to take the breath test.
. Because the lone charge on which Manke was convicted was operating with a blood-alcohol level, and because the test results constitute the only evidence supporting the conviction, we reverse the judgment. (See generally State v. Zielke, 137 Wis. 2d 39, 45, 403 N.W.2d 427 (1987); County of Ozaukee v. Quelle, 198 Wis. 2d 269, 283, 542 N.W.2d 196 (Ct. App. 1995); and State v. Sutton, 177 Wis. 2d 709, 503 N.W.2d 325 (Ct. App. 1993) (officer's noncompliance with the implied consent law results in suppression of test results or in the case of refusal, reversal of the revocation order.))
By the Court. -- Judgment reversed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4 (1997-98).
Page 1 2 3 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|