COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED January 17, 2008 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
NOTICE |
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62. |
|
Appeal No. |
|
|||
STATE OF WISCONSIN |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
DISTRICT IV |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
State of
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Michael T. Zoril,
Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from a judgment of the circuit court for
¶1 BRIDGE, J.[1] Michael T. Zoril appeals from a judgment imposing a forfeiture for speeding in violation of Wis. Stat. § 346.57(4)(gm). Zoril contends that the officer could not enforce the sixty-five mile-per-hour limit at the location where he was stopped because there was not a sign posting the speed limit within his sight. We disagree and affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2 On October 31, 2006, State Trooper Ronald Zenk was operating
a stationary handheld laser speed reading device on an overpass above U.S.
Highway 151 in
DISCUSSION
¶3 In order to convict Zoril of speeding, the State must prove three elements under Wis. Stat. § 346.57(4)(gm): (1) Zoril drove a vehicle on a highway or expressway; (2) at a speed exceeding the established speed limit; and (3) the established speed limit was indicated by official signs.
¶4 Although Zoril maintained at his trial that he was traveling at sixty-five miles per hour, he does not challenge the officer’s eighty-six mile-per-hour reading of his vehicle. Further, Zoril admits that sixty-five miles per hour is the posted speed limit on Highway 151.
¶5 However, Zoril argues that the sixty-five mile-per-hour speed
limit on freeways was not enforceable at the precise location where the trooper
stopped him. Zoril contends that under Wis. Stat. §§ 346.57(6)(b)
and 346.02(7),[2]
the sixty-five mile-per-hour speed limit is only enforceable at locations where
a sufficiently legible speed limit sign has been placed and is in immediate view.
We
disagree.
¶6 Nothing
in these provisions requires that a speed limit sign be within a driver’s
visibility at all times. “Official signs”
must be “in proper position and sufficiently legible.” Officer Zenk testified and the court found
that speed limit postings along Highway 151 were proper. Findings of fact by a trial court shall not
be set aside on appeal unless clearly erroneous. See
Wis. Stat. § 805.17(2); see also Ozaukee County v. Flessas,
140
¶7 Accepting Zoril’s
argument would lead to absurd and unreasonable results. As the State observes, Zoril’s interpretation
would require the posting of sixty-five mile-per-hour limit signs every fifty
yards along a highway in order to ensure that a sign was constantly in
view. Zoril points to no case law
to support this farfetched interpretation of Wis.
Stat. §§ 346.57(6)(b) and 346.02(7).
¶8 In
sum, we conclude that Zoril’s interpretation of the speeding statutes is
unreasonable and unsupported in the law.
We therefore affirm the circuit court’s judgment convicting him of
speeding under Wis. Stat. § 346.57(4)(gm).
By
the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.
[1] This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 752.31(2)(c) (2005-06). All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2005-06 version unless otherwise noted.
[2] Wis. Stat. § 346.57(6) provides: “Certain Statutory Limits to be posted … (b) [t]he limit specified under sub. (4)(gm) is not effective unless official signs giving notice of the limit have been erected by the department.”
Wis. Stat. § 346.02(7) provides:
No provision of this chapter for which signs are required shall be enforced against an alleged violator if at the time and place of the alleged violation an official sign is not in proper position and sufficiently legible to be seen by an ordinarily observant person. Whenever a particular section does not state that signs are required, such section is effective even though no signs are erected or in place.