ADVERTISEMENT

Wis. Supreme Court upholds drunken driving arrest

By ASSOCIATED PRESS   Tuesday, June 16, 2009 - 12:04 p.m.
ADVERTISEMENT

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.




reader COMMENTS
Click here to view reader comments
(10)
Professor
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.

gpawcat
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.

janesvillean
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.

h0rselvngrl
Jun 16, 2009 at 3:05 p.m.
Suggest removal

SarahB~~~> Anytime we can is always a plus!

h0rselvngrl
Jun 16, 2009 at 1:56 p.m.
Suggest removal

Devils....I do agree.

Devilsadvocate
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.

ConcernedCitizen_aka_Disgusted
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.

h0rselvngrl
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.

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 Agreement
  • Keep it clean. Comments that are obscene, vulgar or sexually oriented will be removed. Creative spelling of such terms or implied use of such language is banned, also.
  • Don't threaten to hurt or kill anyone.
  • Be nice. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person.
  • Harassing comments. If you are the subject of a harassing comment or personal attack by another user, do not respond in-kind.  Hit the "Suggest Removal" button on offensive comments.
  • Share what you know. Give us your eyewitness accounts, background, observations and history.
  • Do not libel anyone. Libel is writing something false about someone that damages that person's reputation.
  • Ask questions. What more do you want to know about the story?
  • Stay focused. Keep on the story's topic.
  • Help us get it right. If you spot a factual error or misspelling, email newsroom@gazettextra.com or call 1-800-362-6712.
  • Remember, this is our site. We set the rules, and we reserve the right to remove any comments that we deem inappropriate.

Post Comment

Commenting requires registration.

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

ADVERTISEMENT