State v. Reese
2014 WI App 27
Wis. Ct. App.2014Background
- Reese was convicted for OWI seventh/eighth/ninth offense and challenged the arrest evidence suppression.
- Officer Feucht received a dispatch about erratic driving by a gray Chevy Blazer and located the vehicle at Grandview Motel.
- Reese was observed near the Blazer, appeared unsteady, and smelled of intoxicants; he denied driving.
- Reese had four prior OWI convictions, lowering the alcohol concentration threshold for him.
- Reese was arrested and transported to a hospital for a blood draw; a motion to suppress was denied.
- Reese pled Alford to OWI seventh/eighth/ninth and was sentenced; the appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to arrest Reese for OWI | Reese lacked probable cause to arrest. | Officer had probable cause based on observed cues and dispatch info. | Probable cause existed to arrest Reese. |
| Admissibility of blood draw without warrant or exigent circumstances | Blood draw should be suppressed due to lack of warrant and no exigency. | Exigent circumstances or good-faith reliance on precedent justify admissibility. | Exigency not established; but good faith exception applies, so blood draw not suppressed. |
| Application of good faith exception under Dearborn | Dearborn does not justify avoiding suppression here. | Officer relied on clear Wisconsin precedent; suppression would not deter misconduct. | Blood draw evidence not suppressed due to good faith reliance on settled Wisconsin precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. 2013) (dissipation of alcohol alone is not per se exigency; totality of circumstances governs warrantless blood draws)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (emergency justifies warrantless blood draw to prevent evidence loss)
- Bohling v. Wisconsin, 173 Wis. 2d 529 (Wis. 1993) (dissipation of blood-alcohol evidence alone constituted per se exigency in Wisconsin before McNeely)
- Dearborn v. State, 327 Wis. 2d 252 (Wis. 2010) (good faith exception to exclusionary rule when relying on clear, settled state precedent later deemed unconstitutional by U.S. Supreme Court)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (recognizes standard for Alford pleas in appellate review)