Wis. Supreme Court upholds drunken driving arrest
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The state Supreme Court has ruled police lawfully arrested a man for drunken driving in Maple Bluff.
The opinion Tuesday says police watched Mitchell Lange crash his car around 3 a.m. in January 2007. Officers found Lange unconscious on the sidewalk and the scene soaked with gasoline.
Lange was taken to the hospital, where an officer used his driver's license to learn he had a prior conviction for driving under the influence and arrested him, then asked for an alcohol blood test.
Lange contended police didn't have enough evidence to arrest him. But the Supreme Court said the arrest was reasonable given all the circumstances.

Jun 16, 2009 at 9:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
pawcat--what is a 'no refusal' weekend? Never heard of that. Remember, all that is needed to ARREST is probable cause, defined as, 'a set of articulable facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person/police officer to believe that an offense has been committed, and the person to be arrested committed it.' While never specifically defined, we do know that this amounts to less than a 50/50 chance that the person did it. So, what it really means, is that, based on the available evidence, in conjunction with the officer's training and experience, would a reasonable person of average intelligence believe that it is merely 'probable' that the person arrested committed the offense. WAY far short of the evidence needed to CONVICT. Hope that helps.
Jun 16, 2009 at 5:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
States are having No refusal weekends. If stopped in Illinois, Mo, Texas Ohio and other states at a safety check points, you will either give a breath, or blood. MADD wants Wisconsin to start having safety checkpoints. Governor Doyle supports. The no refusal weekend generally happen on a holiday like 4Th of July. Texas wanted the cops to draw blood, but that didn't go over so well with people.
Jun 16, 2009 at 4:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
The issue was not actually the arrest, but whether the ordered blood test was a warrantless search. The court ruled that under longstanding precedent it met the probable cause test. The timing of the blood draw was tricky because of the constant work the hospital staff was doing to save his life. The officer made a snap judgement without an opportunity to perform an interview of the defendant once conscious, but the court found that the totality of the facts, such as the officers observing the defendant's uncontrolled driving, indicated probable cause was present. The court acknowledged that in most cases other indicators should be used, such as the smell of alcohol or the results of a field sobriety test.
Jun 16, 2009 at 3:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
SarahB~~~> Anytime we can is always a plus!
Jun 16, 2009 at 1:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Devils....I do agree.
Jun 16, 2009 at 1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
It's hard to tell, at the scene of an accident, if the driver is "passed out" or Knocked out do to the accident. Being unconscious makes it hard to do balance tests etc for intoxication. Many times you can smell intoxicating beverages about an unconscious person but that might be hard where the scene was doused with gasoline. Police used his past record, coupled with what driving they saw before the crash, as a basis to arrest him. I agree with the court, that was sufficient, given all the facts of the case.
Jun 16, 2009 at 12:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Shameful. It would have been nice to see the Thugs in Blue put in their place on this one.
Jun 16, 2009 at 12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hmmm........not enough evidence eh? Oh...because crashing your vehicle,and passing out at the scene isn't evidence??
*****
Nice bennetonf1.
Jun 16, 2009 at 12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
but oshifer....hic......
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.