Ordinance Interpretation – OWI

Listen to this article

WI Supreme Court

Case Name: City of Cedarburg v. Ries B. Hansen

Case No.: 2020 WI 11

Focus: Ordinance Interpretation – OWI

This case comes before us on bypass, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 809.60 (2017–18), from the circuit court for Ozaukee County. In 2005, Ries B. Hansen was convicted by the Mid-Moraine Municipal Court of Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) in violation of a City of Cedarburg ordinance, based upon Hansen’s guilty plea to the alleged violation. In 2016, when he was again charged with OWI, Hansen collaterally attacked his 2005 conviction by proving that he had a 2003 OWI conviction in Florida. He contended that his 2005 OWI was factually a second offense and therefore, outside of the municipal court’s limited subject matter jurisdiction. The circuit court agreed and vacated Hansen’s 2005 conviction.

We conclude that the 2005 municipal citations invoked the municipal court’s subject matter jurisdiction, which was granted by Article VII, Section 14 of the Wisconsin Constitution. Therefore, the municipal court had power to adjudicate the allegation that Hansen operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated in violation of a municipal ordinance. And further, even if we were to agree with Hansen that Wisconsin’s statutory progressive OWI penalties were not followed in 2005, the municipal court would have lacked competence not subject matter jurisdiction. City of Eau Claire v. Booth, 2016 WI 65, ¶14, 370 Wis. 2d 595, 882 N.W.2d 738.

And finally, an objection to a court’s competence may be forfeited if it is not raised in a timely manner. Id., ¶1. Hansen was silent about his 2003 Florida OWI conviction until he was again arrested for OWI in 2016. We conclude that, by his 11 years of silence, Hansen has forfeited any competence objection that could exist. Accordingly, his 2005 and 2003 convictions were countable offenses in 2016 for purposes of Wisconsin’s statutory progressive penalty requirements, and we reverse the order of the circuit court.

Reversed

Concur: KELLY, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., joined.

Dissent: HAGEDORN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ANN WALSH BRADLEY and DALLET, JJ., joined.

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.