COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED August
16, 1995 |
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. 95-0061
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN
COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT II
STATE
OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
STEPHEN
PRITCHARD,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL
from an order of the circuit court for Waukesha County: KATHRYN W. FOSTER,
Judge. Affirmed.
SNYDER,
J. Stephen
Pritchard appeals from an order finding that he refused to submit to a chemical
test in violation of § 343.305, Stats. Pritchard contends that the arresting
officer did not have probable cause to arrest him for operating a motor vehicle
while under the influence of intoxicants (OWI) or to request that he submit to
the chemical test. We disagree and
affirm the order.
Officer
Michael J. Brasch of the Menomonee Falls Police Department was dispatched to
investigate a vehicle in a field about 50 to 100 feet from the road. He observed Pritchard lying behind the
driver's seat with his head on the passenger side. The vehicle was locked and Pritchard was unresponsive. Brasch and a police aide knocked on the
vehicle window and shook the car for about five minutes, finally awakening
Pritchard.
After
Pritchard opened the car door, Brasch smelled the odor of intoxicants, observed
that Pritchard's balance was unsteady as he exited the car and noted that Pritchard's
eyes were very red, glassy and somewhat bloodshot. The car keys were located on the passenger side floor rather than
in the ignition. Brasch testified to
the following conversation with Pritchard prior to the arrest:
Q [District Attorney] What if any conversation did you have with the defendant upon
your initial contact with him?
A I asked him why he was in -- parked in
the middle of this field. He stated he
was listening to the radio. I showed
him that the vehicle was not on and the radio was not on. I ones [sic] again asked him why he was
parked in the middle of the field and he stated I was driving and stopped to
pee which he stated and he wanted to listen to the radio.
Q ... Did
you ask the defendant where he had come from?
A Yes, I did. He stated somewhere in Sussex. I asked him where in Sussex and his comment
was the Country Club on Silver Spring.
Stated he was golfing there.
Pritchard
admitted that he had previously consumed beer and Brasch requested that he
submit to field sobriety tests and to a preliminary breath test (PBT).[1] Pritchard failed to successfully perform the
field tests[2] and the PBT
registered 0.17% blood alcohol content (BAC).
Brasch then placed Pritchard under arrest for OWI in violation of
§ 346.63(1), Stats.
There
is no dispute as to the material facts.
When facts are undisputed and only a question of law is at issue, the
appellate court owes no deference to the findings of the lower court. Doe v. Roe, 151 Wis.2d 366,
373, 444 N.W.2d 437, 441 (Ct. App. 1989).
Whether Pritchard's refusal to submit to a blood test was reasonable
requires the application of § 343.305(9)(a)5a.-c., Stats., to the facts.
Section
343.305(9)(a)5a.-c., Stats.,
limits the issues to be addressed at a refusal hearing. Those issues are: (1) whether the officer had probable cause to believe that the
person was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an
intoxicant; (2) whether the officer adequately informed the person of his or
her rights pursuant to § 343.305(4); and (3) whether the person refused the
test.
Pritchard
erroneously equates a refusal hearing with an OWI prosecution. A refusal hearing is separate and distinct
from a prosecution for violating § 346.63(1)(a), Stats.[3] City of Madison v. Bardwell,
83 Wis.2d 891, 902, 266 N.W.2d 618, 623 (1978) (construing former §
343.305(3)(b)5, Stats.).
Pritchard's
argument that the State must prove the threshold issue of his operating a motor
vehicle on a highway or premises held out for public use is similar to an
argument expressly rejected in State v. Nordness, 128 Wis.2d 15,
381 N.W.2d 300 (1986). In Nordness,
the supreme court held that the determination of whether a defendant was the
actual driver of the car is not an issue, nor material to the inquiry, of
whether probable cause existed for the arresting officer to request a chemical
test. Id. at 26‑27,
381 N.W.2d at 304‑05. The supreme
court held that there was no threshold issue based upon statutory grounds. Id. at 29, 381 N.W.2d at 305‑06.
Therefore,
Pritchard's argument that the State failed to establish that he was operating
the vehicle either on a public highway or on premises held out for public use
as required by § 346.61, Stats.,
fails. Compliance with § 346.61 is not
an issue to be determined at a refusal hearing, and we reject Pritchard's claim
of error.
We
now turn to Pritchard's argument that the trial court erred in finding that the
arresting officer had sufficient probable cause that Pritchard operated the
vehicle or that he did so while intoxicated.
According to Pritchard, the probable cause determination fails because
the keys were not in the ignition, the car was not running, he was asleep and
there is no hard evidence as to how the car got into the field.
Where
the underlying facts are undisputed, the issue of whether probable cause exists
is a question of law that we review independently of the trial court's
determination. See State
v. Williams, 104 Wis.2d 15, 21‑22, 310 N.W.2d 601, 604‑05
(1981).
The
issue at a refusal hearing is not whether the evidence establishes that a
defendant was actually operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, but whether
the evidence demonstrates that the officer had probable cause to believe that
the defendant was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Nordness, 128 Wis.2d at 28,
381 N.W.2d at 304-05. To prove probable
cause, it is only necessary to prove that the information available leads a
reasonable officer to believe the individual's guilt is more than a
possibility. Browne v. State,
24 Wis.2d 491, 503‑04, 129 N.W.2d 175, 180 (1964), cert. denied,
379 U.S. 1004 (1965). Thus, at a
refusal hearing “[t]he trial court need only determine a plausible account of
the occurrence which would support a finding of probable cause.” Nordness, 128 Wis.2d at 37
n.6, 381 N.W.2d at 309.
Pritchard
does not dispute that he was intoxicated at the time he was arrested. Nor does he dispute that he was alone in his
vehicle at the time the officer arrived.
There was no evidence of any intoxicants within the area of the
car. He admitted to drinking beer in
Sussex earlier. His vehicle was not in
Sussex but in a field in Menomonee Falls at the time of his arrest. His explanation of why he was parked in the
field (to relieve himself and listen to the car radio which was not on)
supports the arresting officer's belief as being reasonable.
That
Pritchard drove the car from the public roadway into the field while under the
influence of an intoxicant is both reasonable and plausible. We conclude that the officer had sufficient
probable cause to request that Pritchard submit to a chemical test.
By
the Court.—Order affirmed.
This
opinion will not be published. See
Rule 809.23(1)(b)4, Stats.
[1] Section 343.303,
Stats., authorizes a roadside
preliminary breath test where “a law enforcement officer has probable cause to
believe that the person” is or has operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated.
[2] The following
field tests were administered and results obtained: (1) alphabet—speech slurred, cadence unsteady, stopped at letter
“T” and continued with “W”; (2) finger to nose—failed to follow directions,
missed nose and touched upper lip with left index finger, touched tip of nose
with right index finger but was unsteady and unable to keep his head tilted
back; (3) heel to toe—unable to walk a straight line; and (4) leg
balance—unable to keep heel from touching ground.
[3] Section 346.61, Stats., reads:
In addition to being applicable upon highways, ss. 346.62 to 346.64 are
applicable upon all premises held out to the public for use of their motor
vehicles, whether such premises are publicly or privately owned and whether or
not a fee is charged for the use thereof.