State v. Mitchell D. Butschle, 2023AP2120-CR, 5/8/24, District II (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
On appeal from a conviction for operating with a detectable controlled substance, the court rejects Butschle’s claims that police lacked probable cause to arrest. The court affirms because “there were enough indicators of impairment to satisfy probable cause to arrest, including (1) “a strong odor of alcohol,” (2) “Butschle’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy,” (3) “the stop occurred just after 2:00 a.m., which is bar time,” and (4) “Butschle failed the HGN test and showed balance indicators on the other two [FSTs].” Op., ¶¶10-11.
In an otherwise cut and dried opinion, the court drops a footnote pointing out that the state’s brief “failed to cite to a single case and instead simply argued that the facts supported probable cause.” The court further “remind[ed]” the state that the argument section of appellate briefs “shall” contain “the reasons” that support a party’s argument “with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on[.]” Finally, the court takes note of the fact that the state’s fact section was “almost identical” to Butschle’s and that the rules allow a party to omit a statement of the case when the respondent agrees with the appellant’s recitation of the relevant facts. Op., ¶13, n.5.
