Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Motor Vehicles – OWI — prior convictions — equal protection

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//March 12, 2014//

Motor Vehicles – OWI — prior convictions — equal protection

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//March 12, 2014//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Motor Vehicles – OWI — prior convictions — equal protection

Section 343.307(1)(d) does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, even though out-of-state “zero tolerance” suspensions count as prior convictions whereas Wisconsin “absolute sobriety” violations do not.

“There is a rational basis for the legislative determination to dispense with the required conformity with Wisconsin law. Our legislature has control over Wisconsin’s absolute sobriety law, and it has defined the drinking age, the amount of alcohol that can be involved, and how the offenses are treated by courts and prosecutors. Our legislature has no such authority over out-of-state offenses. Our trial courts and bar are familiar with our absolute sobriety law, when it applies, how it is enforced, and how its penalties are administered. It was reasonable to eliminate the conformity requirement between Wisconsin offenses and the countless other variations of these types of offenses, when our legislature has no authority over how they are defined and applied by prosecutors and the courts, much less how other jurisdictions might redefine or apply such offenses over time. Ease of administration in Wisconsin courts provides a rational basis for a single, straightforward, and broad definition of out-of-state offenses applicable to all other jurisdictions. The definition consistently counts all convictions under out-of-state laws prohibiting driving with an excess or specified range of alcohol concentration regardless of their labels or treatment. And, counting all such convictions serves the public good because an exception could lead to undercounting offenses that are defined or applied differently.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2013AP427-CR State v. Hirsch

Dist. II, Walworth County, Reddy, J., Neubauer, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Walter, Andrew R., Elkhorn; For Respondent: Sanders, Michael C., Madison; Necci, Daniel A., Elkhorn

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests