In our last post, we began a discussion about an interesting and important case that was recently argued before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. It is critical for prosecutors in a DUI case to show that the traffic stop was made lawfully; that is, that the officer had probable cause to stop the defendant.
We recently wrote about the acquittal of former Wisconsin Senator Randy Hopper. In the last two months, Hopper was found not guilty in a jury trial on charges of drunk driving. Based on the outcome of that trial, he was also able to beat a charge of refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test.
Last month, we wrote about the complex and controversial drunk driving case against former Wisconsin Senator Randy Hopper stemming from his arrest last October. Hopper's defense attorney has maintained that his DUI arrest and subsequent charges were politically motivated; most likely in retaliation for his vote to eliminate collective bargaining agreements.
In an election year, the media and the public in general tend to scrutinize the nation's lawmakers even more heavily than usual. One former Wisconsin state senator has been under a great deal of scrutiny lately for an issue somewhat distinct from his voting record.
For those who are pulled over by police for suspicion that they are driving under the influence (DUI), the complicated criminal justice process begins as soon as law enforcement requests a field sobriety test or other chemical testing. In Wisconsin, even refusing to submit to blood or urine testing may result in DUI charges.
Earlier this week, we began a discussion about DUI charges stemming from the legal concept of "actual physical control" (APC). In states with APC laws, authorities can charge someone with DUI if they are drunk and in proximity to their car.