City of Lodi v. Hine, 81-1320
Decision Date | 27 April 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 81-1320,81-1320 |
Citation | 107 Wis.2d 118,318 N.W.2d 383 |
Parties | CITY OF LODI, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Harold W. HINE, Defendant-Appellant, State of Wisconsin, Intervenor. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Stephen Charles Solomon, Madison, for defendant-appellant.
Michael S. Hines, Lodi, argued, for plaintiff-respondent; Michael W. Smith, City Atty., on brief.
Kirbie Knutson, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued, for intervenor; Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., on brief.
The case comes to this court via certification by the court of appeals.
The issue is whether the court of appeals holding in State v. Booth, 98 Wis.2d 20, 295 N.W.2d 194 (Ct.App.1980), concerning the admissibility of the results of a breathalyzer examination after the destruction of the test ampoules used, is applicable to civil as well as to criminal operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant cases. The circuit court held it was not bound by the Booth decision because that decision had not been published by the time of trial and, therefore, had no precedential value. Also, the circuit court had doubt as to Booth's retrospective application. The court relied on the facts that there was no legal requirement that the ampoules be kept and it was the recommended practice of the Motor Vehicle Division of the Department of Transportation to destroy the test ampoules after the test was completed. This direction was contained in a published MVD check list for breathalyzer operators.
The defendant, Harold W. Hine, consented to a test of his breath for alcohol content at the time of his arrest on May 1, 1979. The result of the test was a showing of 0.17+ percent blood alcohol concentration. On May 11, 1979, the defendant, by motion, specifically requested production of the breathalyzer ampoule. The trial court denied the motion on October 2, 1979. The record shows the test ampoule was destroyed immediately after its use in the test.
Sec. 345.421, Stats., states:
This section was adopted along with the remainder of ch. 345 to provide a procedure for traffic violations where both ordinances and statutes might apply. Ch. 345 establishes a uniform procedure for the great majority of state Motor Vehicle Code violations and for all ordinances enacted in conformity therewith.
The defendant made his discovery demand for the production of the test ampoule in a timely manner pursuant to sec. 345.421, Stats., and was entitled to its production for testing pursuant to the conditions of sec. 804.09. 1 This was despite the MVD check list directive, which could not eliminate the statutory right to discovery contained in sec. 345.421. Reliance upon the Booth decision was not necessary for this defendant to obtain the test ampoule; his right to inspect and test the ampoule was based instead upon his compliance with the statutory procedure for accomplishing the production.
The breathalyzer machine is useless without the test ampoule; therefore, the ampoule is a part of the device used and, as such, is covered by the language of sec. 345.421, Stats., which states, "including without limitation, devices used to determine presence of alcohol in breath or body fluid."
The motion for discovery in this case was timely, statutorily correct and pointedly specific in identifying the ampoule as the item sought.
The proper motion to discover was followed by a pretrial motion to suppress. Since the state had failed to produce the ampoule as legally and properly demanded, the proper sanction was to suppress the test result and prevent its introduction as evidence at trial.
It is apparent from the adoption of sec. 345.421, Stats., that the legislature intended the use of that section in civil as well as criminal traffic charges, i.e., in those cases where the offense could have been charged as either a civil or criminal violation.
In addition, even if the legislature had not made sec. 345.421, Stats., clearly applicable to either civil or criminal prosecutions of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants (OMVWI), under present law the second and third offense of OMVWI must be brought under sec. 346.63(1) 2 and sec. 346.65(2)(a) 3 which makes it a crime to be convicted of OMVWI two or three times within a five-year period. Therefore, though the first OMVWI offense may be civilly charged, subsequent offenses must be charged as crimes pursuant to sec. 346.65(2)(a). It is only fair and reasonable that discovery practices under sec. 345.421 are equally available for the civil charge of OMVWI as well as for the criminal charge. For the civil conviction to be a trustworthy basis for subsequent potential criminal charges, it should be subject to the same discovery practices.
Ch. 20, sec. 343.305(10)(d), Stats., effective May 1, 1982, puts to rest by legislative directive the time within which demand for testing of an ampoule must be made and the procedure for its being tested. It reads:
In the instant case there was considerable evidence that the defendant was under the influence of an intoxicant independent of the breathalyzer test result. There were also explanations by the defendant for his actions, and it thus became an issue of evidentiary weight to be assessed by the jury. We have no way of determining what influence the breathalyzer test result of 0.17+ percent blood alcohol concentration had in the jury's determination of what weight was given the conflicting evidence and testimony. The jury instruction given by the trial judge, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Cedarburg v. Hansen
...OWI penalty structure, including Booth—needs to be modified. See Banks, 105 Wis. 2d at 39-43, 313 N.W.2d 67 ; City of Lodi v. Hine, 107 Wis. 2d 118, 122-23, 318 N.W.2d 383 (1982) ; Rohner, 108 Wis. 2d at 717-18, 324 N.W.2d 682 ; State v. Williams, 2014 WI 64, ¶¶21, 30, 32, 355 Wis. 2d 581, ......
-
State v. Walstad
..."The ampoule was not an item which the state anticipated introducing into evidence at trial." While we held in City of Lodi v. Hine, 107 Wis.2d 118, 121, 318 N.W.2d 383 (1982), that an ampoule was producible under sec. 345.421, Stats.1979-80, because [119 Wis.2d 489] "the breathalyzer machi......
-
State v. McCrossen
...to discover evidence relating to a chemical test, the proper sanction is suppression of the test results. See City of Lodi v. Hine, 107 Wis.2d 118, 122, 318 N.W.2d 383, 384 (1982)." In this case, the trial court suppressed the breathalyzer test result because the state failed to provide an ......
-
State v. McGrew
...majority of state Motor Vehicle Code violations and for all ordinances enacted in conformity therewith." City of Lodi v. Hine, 107 Wis.2d 118, 120, 318 N.W.2d 383, 384 (1982). Wisconsin Stat. §345.421 was adopted along with the remainder of chapter 345 to provide a procedure for traffic vio......