However, whether the facts satisfy constitutional guarantees is a question of law we review independently. See id. at 389. The sole issue on appeal is whether Christianson had probable cause to arrest Appleyard for operating a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant. Appleyard argues that Christianson failed to obtain any specific information as to the type and amount of alcohol consumed. He contends that because Christianson was unable to administer any field sobriety tests, a more thorough investigation of any alcohol consumption was necessary before directing the hospital to take a blood sample.
Probable cause is a common-sense determination.
It is judged by the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable people, not legal technicians, act. Probable cause to arrest refers to the quantum of evidence which would lead a reasonable police officer to believe that the defendant probably committed a crime. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt need not be established nor does it need to be more likely than not that the defendant committed a crime. All that is required is reasonably trustworthy information that is sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe a crime has been committed. 50 Wis. 2d at 625.