Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION
DATED AND RELEASED
                                                                                              NOTICE
MARCH 25, 1997
A  party  may  file  with  the  Supreme  Court  a                                             This opinion is subject to further editing. If
petition  to  review  an  adverse  decision  by  the                                          published, the official version will appear in
Court of Appeals.   See § 808.10 and RULE 809.62,                                             the bound volume of the Official Reports.
STATS.
Nos.                                                                                          96-2533-FT
96-2534-FT
STATE OF WISCONSIN                                                                            IN COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                              DISTRICT III
Washburn County,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Mark Casper,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from  a judgment of the circuit court for Washburn County:
WARREN WINTON, Judge.   Affirmed.
CANE,  P.J.                                                                                   Mark  Casper  appeals  a  judgment  convicting  him  of
operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.1    He argues that the trial court erred by
denying his motion to suppress the results of his blood alcohol test because the arresting
officer did not have probable cause to arrest and the officer failed to comply with the
implied consent law by not allowing an alternative test.   Additionally, he argues that the
1    This is an expedited appeal under RULE 809.17, STATS.




NOS. 96-2533-FT, 96-2534-FT
trial court erred at trial by admitting the test because the withdrawn blood had not been
properly authenticated.   This court rejects Casper’s contentions and affirms the judgment.
BACKGROUND
After playing eighteen holes of golf around 4 p.m., Casper says that he
drank one vodka and water and two peppermint schnapps with his hosts at a golf outing.
The alcohol was 80 proof and consumed between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m.   He then left for
home and when making a right turn onto Highway 53, another vehicle struck his car.
Casper was knocked unconscious as a result of the accident, but regained consciousness
within a few minutes.   Officer David Dennis approached Casper at the accident scene and
after detecting an odor  of intoxicants on Casper, placed him under arrest for  OWI.
Dennis took Casper to a hospital where his blood was withdrawn and the blood sample
was then taken to the Washburn County Sheriff’s Department where it was placed in a
community  refrigerator  located  in  the  squad  room.    This  sample  remained  in  the
refrigerator over the weekend until it was mailed on Monday to the state crime lab for
testing.
The State charged Casper with failing to yield, operating a motor vehicle
while intoxicated and operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol content.   The
trial court denied Casper’s motion to suppress the blood test and a jury found him guilty
on all charges.   On appeal, Casper does not challenge the failure to yield conviction.
PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST
The first issue is whether the officer had probable cause to arrest Casper.
Probable  cause  exits  when  the  totality  of  the  circumstances  within  the  officer's
knowledge would lead a reasonable officer to believe the individual was operating a
motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant.   State v. Nordness, 128 Wis.2d
2




NOS. 96-2533-FT, 96-2534-FT
15,  35,  381  N.W.2d  300,  308  (1986).    Probable cause is judged by the factual and
practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent persons, not
legal technicians, act.   State v. Truax, 151 Wis.2d 354, 360, 444 N.W.2d 432, 435 (Ct.
App. 1989).
Here, Dennis had received statements from other people at the accident
scene  who  observed  Casper  and  concluded  Casper  was  under  the  influence  of  an
intoxicant.   These observers were Mary Thiede, Joseph Klos and Mark Rau, who told
Dennis that they thought Casper was intoxicated.   Additionally, the ambulance attendant,
Rick Coquillette, also observed Casper and told Dennis that he thought Casper was
intoxicated.   When Dennis approached Casper, an odor of intoxicants could be detected
on Casper’s breath and he admitted that he had consumed a couple of drinks.   With the
statements of the observers and Dennis’s own observations, coupled with the accident
scene where Casper had pulled out in front of another vehicle, this court is satisfied that
the trial court correctly concluded that Dennis had sufficient probable cause to arrest
Casper for OWI.
IMPLIED CONSENT
Casper contends that the police failed to comply with the implied consent
law by failing to read the Informing the Accused form completely.   Also, it is claimed
that Dennis refused to honor Casper’s request for an alternative test where the blood
would be withdrawn by his own doctor.   This court is not persuaded.   The testimony
shows that Dennis read the form to Casper and omitted only that portion dealing with a
commercial driver’s license.   There is no evidence that Casper has a commercial driver’s
license.    Consequently, there is sufficient evidence to show that Dennis substantially
complied with § 343.305(4), STATS., and informed Casper of his rights and the penalties
3




NOS. 96-2533-FT, 96-2534-FT
for refusing to submit to the test.   See State v. Piskula, 168 Wis. 2d 135, 140-41, 483
N.W.2d 250, 252 (Ct. App. 1992).
Although  Casper  testified  that  he  requested  an  alternative  test,  his
testimony was refuted by Dennis, who stated that Casper never requested an alternative
test and initially refused to comply with the requested blood test at the hospital after
insisting that his own doctor withdraw the blood.   The trial court is the trier of fact and
believed Dennis’s testimony.   Additionally, as the State points out in its brief, the police
were required only to provide a reasonable opportunity for Casper to obtain an alternate
test at his own expense within three hours of the stop.   See State v. Vincent, 171 Wis.2d
124, 128, 490 N.W.2d 761, 763 (Ct. App. 1992).   As stated in Vincent:
A careful reading of sec. 343.305(5)(a), Stats., shows that
it requires the agency to provide a "reasonable opportunity"
for the test; it does not require the agency to comply with a
reasonable request. "Reasonable," as used in the statute,
modifies  the  word  "opportunity,"  not  "request."  The
agency's    responsibility   to    provide    a    "reasonable
opportunity"  is  limited  to  not  frustrating  the  accused's
request for his or her own test. To require the agency to
take  an  active  part  in  obtaining  a  test  of  the  accused's
choosing could open the door for other responsibilities to
be  imposed  upon  the  agency,  such  as  insuring  that  the
person or facility performing the test is qualified within the
meaning of sec. 343.305(5)(b) or (6)(a). We do not believe
the statute extends the responsibility of the agency this far.
Id. (emphasis in original).
AUTHENTICATION
Finally,  Casper  contends  the  blood  test  results  should  have  been
suppressed as a matter of law because they were not properly authenticated.   Essentially,
he contends that the blood sample left in the squad room refrigerator and later mailed to
the state crime lab was unreliable because of the chain of evidence in securing, mailing,
receiving and testing the sample.   Witnesses from the sheriff’s department and the state
4




NOS. 96-2533-FT, 96-2534-FT
crime lab testified that they followed the standard procedure with this sample.    Any
contention that the test result is unreliable or inaccurate goes only to the weight of the
evidence which was for the jury to determine, not to its admissibility.   See State v. Disch,
119 Wis.2d 461, 476, 351 N.W.2d 492, 500 (1984).   Casper had sufficient opportunity to
question the witnesses involved with the sample, and the jury rejected Casper’s argument.
Therefore, the conviction for OWI is affirmed.
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published.   See RULE 809.23(1)(b)4, STATS.
5

Download 11368.pdf

Wisconsin Law