Onalaska-Law.com
  • HOME Page
  • OWI/DWI/DUI Defense
  • Car Accidents and Personal Injury
  • Criminal Charges
  • ACTUAL CRIMINAL & OWI/DWI RESULTS
  • Motorcycle Accidents
  • Attorney Info
  • Contact Us
  • Onalaska-Law Blog
  • Map of Location in Onalaska
  • Court Directory & Legal Resources

State of Wisconsin vs. Carter Shows its Ugly Face in La Crosse County OWI/PAC Charges.

4/25/2013

 

Supreme Court of Wisconisn Decision Holds that License Suspensions
Stemming from Absolute Sobriety Convictions Only from Other States Can be Counted Just Like a Prior OWI/DWI/DUI Conviction.
Absolutely Bizzare. 

Yes, State of Wisconsin v. Carter has been around since 2010, but it has only recently been changing the way 
defendants in La Crosse County OWI or PAC cases are being charged.  For this OWI defense attorney, counting
prior out-of-state suspensions or revocations for Absolute Sobriety violations, Absolute Sobriety convictions, or Implied Consent "convictions" the same way you would a prior drunk driving conviction is patently unfair.
However, some Wisconsin OWI prosecutors, including the current one in La Crosse County, are using Carter to do just that.  Judges, ruling that their hands are tied by Carter, have little choice but to allow them to do so.      

Wis. Stat. section 343.307 definitely allows Wisconsin OWI prosecutors to count prior Wisconsin OWI or PAC
convictions, as well as prior Implied Consent Refusals to test, as prior convictions to enhance new OWI/PAC charges to more serious levels, e.g., OWI/PAC 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.  (The ability to count these "priors" has other limitations which are not covered in the scope of this article.)  Currently, an OWI/PAC 4th is a felony if it is within 5 years of another.  So this is serious stuff.

Section 343.307 does not allow Wisconsin prosecutors to count prior Implied Consent violations, prior Absolute Sobriety "convictions", and certainly not losses of license stemming from Absolute Sobriety convictions, as priors, if they occurred in Wisconsin.  However, according to a majority in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in Carter, suspensions from Absolute Sobriety convictions can be counted, if they originate from other states.   

The Carter court overturned the Court of Appeals ruling which held that the Illinois suspension could not be counted as a prior conviction under 343.307.  The court reached its conclusion by interpreting section 343.307 in a manner that determined that prior Illinois administrative suspensions for committing an Absolute Sobriety offense were prior "convictions".  

The reasoning and interpretation of the majority is quite complicated, and you can read it yourself.  Suffice it to say, I respectfully disagree.  Justice Anne Walsh Bradley also disagreed, and her dissent is, in my opinion, far more compelling.

The main reason I disagree with the ruling is that these so-called "convictions", if they occurred in Wisconsin, could not even be counted under 343.307.  It would be extremely odd , not to mention possibly unconstitutional, for the legislature  to draft the statute so it treats out-of-state drivers, or drivers who moved to Wisconsin, more harshly than drivers from Wisconsin.  Further, unlike actual convictions, the suspensions at issue in Carter were "administrative."  These types of "convictions" can theoretically be proven only by only DMV driving records, even if court records relating to the underlying charge, here Absolute Sobriety, are non-existent.  See State of Wisconsin v. Van Riper, 2003, WI App. 237.  Finally, this ruling affects people with Absolute Sobriety suspensions.  These people are or were, almost by definition, under 21 years of age at the time of the underlying event.  They shouldn't have a .02 BAC driving event follow them potentially for the rest of their lives.  

State v. Carter revolved around statutory interpretation.  Therefore, unless the legislature changed the statute to avoid this result, or unless the Supreme Court of Wisconsin reverses the decision, it is the law.  There is likely little chance of either occurring in the near future.  There may be differences between state laws regarding such revocations or suspensions that would distinguish them from the holding in Carter.  However, to date I have not had a judge agree.  What can be done, if a judge will not strike these prior "conviction" on motion, is to take the OWI case to a jury trial to avoid the conviction altogether.  If that does not work, or is not practical, then definitely argue for more lenient treatment at sentencing.  A person with two prior suspensions or revocations for Absolute Sobriety should not be treated the same as someone with two actual prior drunk driving convictions.       

Thanks for letting me vent.              

Comments are closed.

    Author

    Christopher W. Dyer, a Wisconsin and Minnesota Trial Lawyer, serving La Crosse and surrounding counties.

    Archives

    January 2018
    December 2016
    October 2016
    August 2016
    June 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    October 2015
    July 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    December 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013

    Categories

    All
    Blood Testing
    Breath Testing
    Car Accidents
    Domestic Charges
    Forfeiture Cases
    Going To Court
    How To Choose A Good Lawyer
    Implied Consent
    In The News
    Minnesota Dwi
    Owi 1st
    Repeat Owi
    Traffic Court
    Urine Testing.

    RSS Feed