Statutory Interpretation

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District IV

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Joshua H. Quisling

Case No.: 2017AP1658-CR

Officials: BLANCHARD, J.

Focus: Statutory Interpretation

Joshua Quisling was convicted of operating with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration, third offense, based on a maximum blood alcohol concentration level of 0.02. The State contended that he was appropriately assigned a maximum 0.02 level because, pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 340.01(46m)(c), at the time of the alleged offense, he was “subject to” a court order to install an ignition interlock device that had been entered pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 343.301.

In this appeal, Quisling argues that the circuit court misinterpreted a set of interrelated statutes in denying a motion to dismiss the complaint. More specifically, he argues that, at the time of the alleged offense, he was not “subject to” a device installation order entered pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 343.301, as addressed in § 340.01(46m)(c). According to Quisling’s argument, the order requiring him to install a device was contingent on the Wisconsin Department of Transportation issuing him a Wisconsin driver’s license, which had not occurred, and therefore his prohibited alcohol concentration remained at the default 0.08 level.  I conclude that Quisling was “subject to an order” entered pursuant to § 343.301, as provided in § 340.01(46m)(c), commencing upon entry of the order requiring him to install the device, regardless of the license-issue contingency that triggered the timing of required device installation. Accordingly I affirm.

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.