Source: http://www.onalaska-law.com/onalaska-law-blog/category/repeat%20owi
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:26:08+00:00

Document:
WI COURT OF APPEALS RULES THAT ODOR OF INTOXICANT ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH TO REQUIRE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTING (at least before Midnight).
There is good reason to be skeptical about the prospect of challenging OWI stops and/or arrests given the manner these cases have been handled in the courts of appeal in this Country. The "freedom-destroying cocktail" that was recently thrown in our faces by the Supreme Court of the United States in Navarette v. California wheeled out all the usual suspects that have led lawyers to coin the phrase "the drunk-driving exception to the Fourth Amendment."
Watching one after another "close case" go against the rights of citizens to be free from unreasonable seizures just about extinguished the fire under my boiler. However, a new Wisconsin Court of Appeals case has rekindled my hope for fair interpretation of the Fourth Amendment in OWI/DWI cases.
Released yesterday, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District IV, overturned a Wood County Circuit ruling that an officer was justified in requiring field sobriety tests which resulted in arrest. In an unpublished opinion in State of Wisconsin v. Gumersinda Gonzalez, the Court Appeals ruled that the odor of alcohol, without any other indicators of impairment, including bad driving, red eyes, etc., did not itself create a reasonable suspicion of impairment to allow the arresting officer to move to field sobriety testing. However, it appears the ruling may have been the opposite if the stop would have occured at 12:00 a.m. or after, instead of 10 p.m.
Essentially, the Court of Appeals found that the Wood County Circuit Court Judge erred by taking into account observations that were made after Gonzalez was removed from the vehicle. The only observations relevant to expanding the scope of the seizure were those made before the request for field testing occurred. As the one-judge opinion pointed out, “Not every person who has consumed alcoholic beverages is ‘under the influence’....” WIS JI—CRIMINAL 2663. Other unpublished opinions with similar circumstances, State v. Meyer, No. 2010AP336-CR, unpublished slip op. (WI App July 14, 2010), and County of Sauk v. Leon, No. 2010AP1593, unpublished slip op. (WI App Nov. 24, 2010), also supported that the odor of intoxicant, standing alone, was not enoug for field tests.
We will wait to see if the State further appeals this decision to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. However, with three standing unpublished opinions, risking an authoritative published opinion would not seem their wisest choice.
WHEN YOUR 'FIRST-OFFENSE OWI' IS REALLY YOUR 'FIRST-OFFENSE 2nd', YOU GET THE "IID" IN YOUR CAR.
WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS HOLDS THAT OWI 1st CONVICTION MORE THAN 10 YEARS FROM FIRST ACTUAL OWI MEANS COURT MUST ORDER IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE.
Prior to Wednesday, here is what we knew: In Wisconsin, a first-offense OWI is a civil citation, or "forfeiture", case. A second-offense OWI is a criminal charge if the driving occurs within 10 years of the driving that gave rise to the first OWI conviction. Conversely, If the second OWI occurs outside the 10 years, it is a first-offense again. So, a person can have two "OWI 1st" charges (but never three). We'll call the second one an "OWI1st 2nd".
For first-offense OWI convictions, where the BAC is .15 or greater, the court must order that an interlock ignition device ("IID") be installed in any vehicle driven, owned or registered to the defendant. Wis. Stat. § 343.301. An IID must be ordered for all criminal second or greater OWI's . However, what about when a person is charged with OWI 1st because the first OWI was more than 10 years ago? That guy doesn't get the IID if the BAC was less than .15, right? The Court of Appeals answered that question just this Wednesday, January 29th, in Village of Grafton v. Eric L. Seatz, 2013AP1414. I am guessing Eric L. Seatz doesn't like the answer.
different intentions for how each statute treats prior OWI convictions." Seatz, 2013AP1414, par. 7.
Many in Wisconsin have decried the civil nature of the first-offense OWI, arguing that it's too easy on the offender and diminishes the seriousness of the offense. The Court of Appeals has made it a tougher on the second "first-offense" driver. Having an IID order means paying around $1,000 in equipment rental fees for each vehicle subject to the order--not to mention all the stigma involved in having one of the things in your car. More than ever, there is reason to fight your "OWI 1st 2nd."

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 343
 v.