COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED August 22, 1996 |
NOTICE |
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 96-0373
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
CITY OF CUBA CITY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
RANDALL D. KIEFFER,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from final
judgment of the circuit court for Grant County: GEORGE S. CURRY, Judge. Affirmed.
ROGGENSACK,
J. The defendant, Randall D. Kieffer (Kieffer), appeals the denial
of his motion to dismiss charges of operating a motor vehicle while under the
influence of an intoxicant (OMVWI) and operating a commercial vehicle with a
prohibited blood alcohol concentration (BAC), and also his conviction. On appeal[1],
Kieffer contends that the initiation of a criminal OMVWI/BAC prosecution
subsequent to the imposition of an administrative suspension of driving
privileges violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the
United States Constitution. Kieffer's
argument is contrary to controlling precedent.
Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is affirmed.
On October 28, 1995,
Cuba City Chief of Police Kevin Atkinson (Atkinson) received two citizen
reports of a semi-truck being driven in an erratic manner. Upon investigation, Atkinson observed
Kieffer's semi jack-knifing while attempting to make a U-turn on a small city
street. As Atkinson approached the
semi, Kieffer exited his vehicle and admitted that he had been drinking. Atkinson performed a preliminary breath test
on the scene and got a reading between .20 and .23. After Kieffer failed a chemical test for intoxication less than
three hours later, his operating license was administratively suspended
pursuant to § 346.305, Stats. Subsequently, Kieffer was charged in a
criminal complaint with violations of §§ 346.63(1)(b) and (7), Stats.
The trial court denied suppression and double jeopardy motions by
Kieffer, adjudged him guilty and fined him.
Kieffer argues that the
administrative suspension of his operating privileges constituted a
"punishment" to which double jeopardy attached, precluding a criminal
OMVWI/BAC prosecution. His contention
requires analysis of both the Fifth Amendment[2]
and Wisconsin's Implied Consent Law, § 343.305, Stats. Because the
question involves the application of constitutional principles to undisputed
facts, the issue is reviewed de novo.
State v. Pheil, 152 Wis.2d 523, 529, 449 N.W.2d 858, 861
(Ct. App. 1989).
The Fifth Amendment
provides that no person shall "be subject for the same offense to be twice
put in jeopardy of life or limb."
U.S. Const. This Double Jeopardy Clause includes three
distinct constitutional guarantees: (1)
protection against a second prosecution for the same offense after an
acquittal; (2) protection against a second prosecution for the same offense
after a conviction; and (3) protection against multiple punishments for the
same offense. State v. Kurzawa,
180 Wis.2d 502, 515, 509 N.W.2d 712, 717, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___,
114 S.Ct. 2712, 129 L.Ed.2d 839 (1994).
Kieffer argues that he was subjected to multiple punishments for the
same offense, contrary to the third protection afforded by the Double Jeopardy
Clause.
A civil penalty may
constitute "punishment" when the penalty serves the goals of
punishment, such as retribution or deterrence.
United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 448, 109 S.Ct.
1892, 1901-02, 104 L.ED.2d 487 (1989).
However, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals has already determined that §
343.305, Stats. is remedial in
nature because it was enacted to keep drunken drivers off the road. State v. McMaster, 198 Wis.2d
542, 548, 543 N.W.2d 499, 501, petition for review granted, 546 N.W.2d
468 (1996). In other words, the primary
purpose of the implied consent law is to protect innocent drivers and
pedestrians, rather than to punish drunken drivers. Id. McMaster
represents the current state of Wisconsin law, and is binding on this
court. Therefore, Kieffer's criminal
prosecution for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, after the
administrative suspension of his operating privileges, did not constitute
multiple punishments, and did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
By the Court.--Judgment
affirmed.
Not recommended for
publication in the official reports. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)4., Stats.
[2] Article I, sec. 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution also provides that "no person for the same offense may be put twice in jeopardy of punishment." However, because Wisconsin interprets its double jeopardy clause in accordance with the rulings of the United States Supreme Court, State v. Kurzawa, 180 Wis.2d 502, 522, 509 N.W.2d 712, 721, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 2712, 129 L.Ed.2d 839 (1994), and because the defendant does not raise the Wisconsin constitutional issue, this analysis is limited to the federal clause.