State v. Carter
330 Wis. 2d 1
Wis.2010Background
- Carter was arrested in Wisconsin (Aug. 25, 2007) for OWI, second offense, and a PAC; the charge was amended to OWI fourth offense after discovering two Illinois zero-tolerance suspensions of his operating privilege.
- Illinois law: under-21 drivers face suspensions for refusal to submit to chemical tests or for any test with BAC >0.00; suspensions are administrative, with an avenue to appeal to the Secretary of State.
- Wisconsin accelerated OWI penalties count prior offenses and a total of suspensions, revocations, and other convictions under Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1).
- Circuit court held Illinois suspensions were either refusals or BAC >0.00 and counted as a fourth offense under § 343.307(1)(l)(d).
- Court of appeals reversed, holding Illinois suspensions do not count under § 343.307(1).
- Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the Illinois zero-tolerance suspensions are convictions under Wis. Stat. §§ 343.307(1)(d) and 340.01(9r) and properly counted in sentencing Carter for OWI.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Illinois zero-tolerance suspensions count as prior offenses | Carter argues §343.307(1)(e) should apply or that §343.307(1)(d) does not include Illinois suspensions | State argues Illinois suspensions fit §343.307(1)(d) as out-of-state convictions | Yes; Illinois suspensions count under (d) as convictions |
| What is the meaning of conviction under §343.307(1)(d) | 340.01(9r) definition should apply or not depending on redundancy with (e) | 340.01(9r) applies; (e) not exclusive | Convictions defined by 340.01(9r) apply to §343.307(l)(d) |
| Are Illinois suspensions administrative or adjudicative in nature | Administrative suspensions can be treated as convictions | Suspensions arise from administrative processes | Illinois suspensions are administrative determinations by an authorized tribunal and count as convictions |
| Did the majority misread the legislative history | Intended to count out-of-state OWI for those offenses; dissent argues broader intent | Legislative history supports broad counting to comply with federal acts | No; statute intended broad counting including out-of-state OWI-related offenses |
| Does the counting policy create unfairness between Wisconsin and Illinois youths | Underage drivers in Illinois face stricter counting than in Wisconsin | Legislature chose broad counting; policy is for compliance and safety | Policy considerations left to Legislature; court upholds counting |
Key Cases Cited
- Arvia v. Madigan, 809 N.E.2d 88 (Ill. 2004) (administrative suspensions can be treated as violations in out-of-state context)
- State v. Machgan, 306 Wis.2d 752 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007) (holding out-of-state administrative suspensions not counted under (d) (disagreed with by majority))
- State v. List, 277 Wis.2d 836 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004) (applies 340.01(9r) to §343.307(l)(d) counting convictions)
- State v. Mattson, 409 N.W.2d 138 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987) (Mattson problem—out-of-state OWI not counted without conformity under prior law)
- State v. Puchacz, 323 Wis.2d 741 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010) (interprets §343.307(l)(d) in Michigan OWI context)