Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear case in which driver refused chemical testing

Feb. 21, 2012 – The Wisconsin Supreme Court may soon decide whether reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle is an issue that can be raised at the “refusal hearing” stage when a person refuses chemical testing.

Dimitri Anagnos requested a refusal hearing after receiving notice that his driving privileges would be revoked. Under Wis. Stat. section 343.305, a person’s license can be revoked if they fail to take a chemical test at the request of law enforcement. The fact of refusal can also be used in court.

Anagnos was pulled over by police and refused to take a chemical test at their request. Ultimately, they arrested him for operating while intoxicated, first offense. At his refusal hearing, he argued that his license should not be revoked because police did not have reasonable suspicion to stop his car.

The circuit court agreed. It suppressed all evidence obtained from the stop and concluded that Anagnos’s refusal to submit to chemical testing was reasonable. An appeals court affirmed, explaining that police do not have authority to request chemical testing if they don’t have probable cause.

On appeal to the supreme court, the state is arguing that standards of probable cause determinations are different at refusal hearings than at suppression hearings.

The state says the court of appeal’s interpretation is contrary to the purpose of the implied consent law and would dramatically alter the scope of refusal hearings.

Under 343.305(2), all drivers impliedly consent to chemical and other testing when they drive on public roads and highways in the state and an officer requests testing upon arrest for OWI or related charges.

The case is State. v. Anagnos, 2010AP1812. 

The Wisconsin Supreme Court also accepted review of State v. Lemoine, 2010AP2597-CR. In that case, defendant Dennis Lemoine asks the supreme court to review lower court decisions on whether statements he made to police were voluntary and properly admitted, and if the admission of his statements was harmless error. Lemoine was convicted for sexually assaulting a seven-year-old girl, but argues that police coerced him into making incriminating statements.

These summaries were derived from full summaries on the Wisconsin Court System website, which includes a list of cases denied review by supreme court.