City of Watertown v. Andrew D. Wiest, 2023AP992, 2/15/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Although Wiest faults the City for failing to prove that he operated his motor vehicle while intoxicated, COA is satisfied there was sufficient circumstantial proof and affirms.
Wiest’s legal troubles began when an officer spotted his truck illegally parked near the downtown area of Watertown around 3 AM. (¶3). The high beams of the truck were lit and the back tire was on the sidewalk. (Id.). Wiest was behind the wheel of the (non-running) automobile, asleep. (Id.). The keys were in the ignition. (¶4). The evidence gathered during this OWI investigation was significant: a strong odor of intoxicants, an open intoxicant in the center console, slurred speech, and an admission that Wiest had consumed alcohol several hours earlier. (¶¶5-6). Wiest failed the field sobriety tests and also admitted to recent operation of his vehicle. (¶7). His blood tested positive for a high level of alcohol. (Id.).
Given these facts, the parties stipulated at trial that Wiest was intoxicated at the time of his interaction with the officer. (¶8). The only disputed issue is whether he had driven his car while in that state. (Id.). The officer testified that she frequently checked the area in which she discovered Wiest and was therefore “confident” she would have spotted his truck if it had been parked there earlier that night (her shift started at 10 PM). (¶9).
On appeal, COA has no trouble concluding that the City produced sufficient evidence that Wiest had operated while intoxicated. There was no dispute that he had to have driven the car at some point prior to his arrest. (¶18). The other circumstantial evidence–including his intoxication, his admission to drinking, and the way in which the car was sloppily and hastily parked–all support a reasonable inference that Wiest was intoxicated when he did so. (¶19). Contrary to Wiest’s arguments, the City was not required to establish a “precise time of operation” and, in fact, the evidence supported an inference of recent intoxicated driving. (¶20).
