State v. Jacob Karl Schindler, 2023AP755, 1/25/24, District 4 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
Schindler appeals from an order revoking his operating privileges after he refused to submit to chemical testing of his blood pursuant to Wisconsin’s implied consent law. The court of appeals affirms after concluding that the arresting deputy had probable cause to believe Schindler operated a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.
Schindler’s refusal to submit to chemical testing came after he refused to submit to field sobriety tests (FSTs) and after he generally failed to cooperate with a deputy’s OWI investigation. Upon arriving to the scene around 11:30 p.m., deputies discovered a vehicle revving its engine and stuck in the mud at the bottom of a 50-75 foot ravine. A deputy believed the vehicle must have missed the stop sign at the “T-intersection” and driven off the road. Upon approaching the vehicle, deputies made contact with the driver, Schindler, who was accompanied only by his dog. The deputy smelled alcohol coming from the vehicle and observed that Schindler’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy and that his speech was slurred. Schindler initially failed to comply with the deputy’s requests that he turn off his vehicle and refused to exit the vehicle or answer any questions. The deputy then opened Schindler’s door and, after Schindler reached for a pen, the deputy grabbed Schindler’s hand and pulled him out of the vehicle. Schindler’s non-cooperation continued once outside of the vehicle, and he was eventually handcuffed and walked up the ravine and placed in the back of a squad car.
Schindler argues that he was arrested when he was placed in the back of the squad car while handcuffed. Therefore, Schindler argues, his subsequent refusal to submit to FSTs, which immediately proceeded his formal OWI arrest and refual to submit to chemical testing of his blood, could not be used to establish probable cause to believe he operated a vehicle while intoxicated.
The court of appeals disagrees and affirms the circuit court’s order revoking Schindler’s operating privileges. First, the court concludes that Schindler was not arrested until after he refused to submit to FSTs. The court concludes Schindler was subject to only a “temporary investigative detention” in response to Schindler’s failure to comply with the deputy’s investigation . Op., ¶¶15-19. Therefore, the court considers Schindler’s refusal to perform FSTs along with the single vehicle accident, the odor of alcohol, Schindler’s bloodshot and glassy eyes, Schindler’s slurred speech, and Schindler’s overall lack of cooperation with the deputy’s OWI investigation. Op., ¶¶22-25.
While the court notes that the refusal to submit to FSTs can support a finding of probable cause and may be evidence of “consciousness of guilt,” it does not seem like the case was that close of a call even without Schindler’s refusal to perform FSTs. In any case, the court holds that at the time Schindler refused to submit to chemical testing of his blood, probable cause existed to believe Schindler operated a vehicle while intoxicated.
