Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

01-2715 County of Dane v. Sporle

By: dmc-admin//August 5, 2002//

01-2715 County of Dane v. Sporle

By: dmc-admin//August 5, 2002//

Listen to this article

Sherman Sporle appeals a judgment convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant (OMVWI), as a first offense. He claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of the results of two post-arrest tests for alcohol concentration. Specifically, Sporle argues that the arresting officer failed to comply with the Implied Consent Law because the officer did not clarify whether he had requested a blood test as the agency’s “alternate test” under Wis. Stat. sec. 343.305(5)(a), or was seeking a test from a “qualified person of his … own choosing” at “his … own expense,” as also authorized by that paragraph.

We conclude that the authority Sporle cites creates no “duty to clarify” that was breached by the arresting officer in this case. Sporle gave no indication that he wanted to pay for an independent test of any kind, and we agree with the trial court that the officer reasonably interpreted Sporle’s request as being for the department’s “alternate test.” We also conclude that the officer fulfilled his obligation to “inform the accused,” and did nothing to frustrate a request on Sporle’s part to obtain a third test at his own expense.

We therefore affirm the judgment of conviction.

This opinion will not be published.

Dist IV, Dane County, Krueger, J., Deininger, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Ralph A. Kalal, Monona

For Respondent: Annemarie Leonardini Braun, Madison

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