Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in Eau Claire County drunken driving case

Listen to this article

Even though a northern Wisconsin woman was arrested 24 years ago for drunken driving, her lawyers will appear before the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Thursday to argue the resulting citation should be voided.

The case stems from the case of Melissa Booth of Superior, who was convicted of a first-offense drunken driving charge in 1992 in Eau Claire County. Although that was the first time she was found guilty of such an offense in Wisconsin, it was in fact her second encounter with the law over drunken-driving allegations.

Two years before, she had been convicted on drunken-driving charges in Minnesota. Because of that previous run-in, Booth argued in 2014 that her original Wisconsin conviction should have in fact been treated as her second conviction.

In Wisconsin, the difference between a first and second OWI conviction is substantial. First convictions are treated as civil matters and are often handled by municipal courts. Only OWIs that are second offenses or beyond are considered criminal.

Booth’s arguments have so far not fallen on deaf ears. Last year, Eau Claire County Circuit Court Judge William Gabler took her side, finding that the prior out-of-state conviction invalidated the civil judgement for the 1992 conviction.

The state quickly appealed the decision and, in July, submitted a petition to bypass of the state Court of Appeals. The state Supreme Court granted the request, agreeing to take the case in December.

The city of Eau Claire, however, is arguing that any ruling eliminating Booth’s conviction from 1992 would be inconsistent with both case law and the state’s drunken-driving laws. The city contends that ruling in favor of Booth would specifically upset case law surrounding the jurisdiction of circuit courts.

The Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers submitted a brief March 14 in support of Booth, arguing that to rule for the state would be to change well-settled law for a rare set of circumstances. It is a prosecutor’s burden to bring proper charges and it rarely happens that a prosecutor fails to do so, according to the brief.

The high court on Thursday will hear State v. Booth at 10:45 a.m.