Opinion ID: 2764887
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: M. were headed to Langlade Memorial Hospital.

Text: ¶11 When Deputy Bradley Schultz and Sergeant Michael Wizner (Sergeant Wizner) arrived at the accident scene, Deputy Hoffman left to go to the Langlade Memorial Hospital. He spent approximately 30 minutes driving to the hospital. ¶12 Deputy Hoffman arrived at Langlade Memorial Hospital around 2:00 a.m. and interviewed Tullberg approximately ten minutes later. This interview lasted approximately ten minutes. Tullberg told Deputy Hoffman that M.A. was driving the truck when it crashed and that Tullberg did not know M.A.'s last name. Tullberg stated that he knew M.A. for only three days and never let M.A. drive his truck before that night. Tullberg said he was in the passenger seat of the truck when the accident happened and that he did not remember how he exited the truck. Tullberg said that the passenger's side airbag deployed. Tullberg stated that a fourth person may have been in the truck. Deputy Hoffman noticed that Tullberg appeared to have been struck by an airbag because hair on Tullberg's right forearm was singed consistent with friction from an airbag and because Tullberg smelled like the residue from a deployed airbag. 5 No. 2012AP1593-CR ¶13 Tullberg admitted to Deputy Hoffman that he consumed alcohol that night, specifically, a mixed drink and a Jӓger bomb.5 While interviewing Tullberg, Deputy Hoffman noticed that Tullberg had an odor of intoxicants, slurred speech, and bloodshot and glassy eyes. Based on these facts, Deputy Hoffman determined that Tullberg was intoxicated. ¶14 Deputy Hoffman next spent approximately five to ten minutes interviewing A.M., who was in a different room in the Langlade Memorial Hospital. A.M. said that when the accident happened, she was in the bed of the truck, M.A. was driving the truck, and Tullberg was riding in the passenger's seat. ¶15 After interviewing A.M. and while still at the hospital, Deputy Hoffman telephoned Sergeant Wizner to gather information about the accident scene. Sergeant Wizner told Deputy Hoffman that the airbag on the passenger's side had not deployed and that the airbag on the driver's side had deployed. Sergeant Wizner confirmed that the truck was lying on its driver's side and that its driver's side window was intact and partially rolled down. ¶16 Deputy Hoffman thereafter concluded that he had probable cause to believe that Tullberg was intoxicated and the driver of the truck at the time of the accident. Deputy Hoffman based this determination on the fact that the passenger's side 5 A Jӓger bomb is made by dropping a shot glass of Jägermeister (a 70-proof liqueur) into a glass of an energy drink, such as Red Bull® or Monster Energy®. 6 No. 2012AP1593-CR airbag did not deploy but the driver's side airbag did deploy. Tullberg appeared as if an airbag struck him because his right forearm hair was singed and he smelled like airbag residue. Further, Deputy Hoffman determined that even though Tullberg said that M.A. was the driver, the evidence indicated that M.A. could not have been the driver. M.A. was pinned underneath the driver's side of the truck, and the evidence from the accident scene showed that M.A. could not have been ejected from the vehicle. Specifically, the driver's side window was intact and partially rolled down. M.A., whose weight Deputy Hoffman estimated was between 240 and 250 pounds, could not have fit through the window opening. M.A. could not have been the driver and then pinned under the driver's side of the vehicle without being ejected from the vehicle. There was no indication that he could have been ejected. Also, Deputy Hoffman did not detect any airbag residue on M.A. ¶17 Simply stated, as a result of the information Deputy Hoffman learned from his observations and interview of Tullberg, coupled with the evidence at the scene of the accident, Deputy Hoffman determined that Tullberg had operated the motor vehicle while intoxicated. ¶18 Because of the facts and circumstances of this investigation, Deputy Hoffman did not follow standard protocol for an operating under the influence arrest. He did not administer field sobriety tests, issue a citation, arrest 7 No. 2012AP1593-CR Tullberg, or read the Informing the Accused form to Tullberg.6 Deputy Hoffman testified that he did not follow the standard procedure because, among other things, Tullberg's medical condition was unknown, Tullberg was hospitalized after a serious car accident, and medical personnel needed to perform a Computerized Tomography scan (CT scan) on Tullberg with some immediacy. ¶19 More than two and a half hours after the accident, Deputy Hoffman instructed medical staff to draw two vials of Tullberg's blood for testing. He did not have a warrant. Deputy Hoffman believed that Tullberg's blood needed to be drawn urgently because, based on his training, he believed the alcohol in Tullberg's bloodstream was rapidly dissipating and time was of the essence. Based on his training, Deputy Hoffman knew that a suspected drunken driver's blood should be drawn within three hours of an automobile accident in which the driver was involved.7 At 3:05 a.m. hospital staff drew Tullberg's blood. The blood test results indicated that Tullberg's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was 0.141, above the legal limit. 6 Tullberg did not object to the blood draw. However, the State does not argue that Tullberg consented to it. 7 If a blood sample is taken more than three hours after an automobile accident, the blood draw evidence is admissible only if an expert testifies to its accuracy. See Wis. Stat. §§ 885.235(1g), 885.235(3) (2009-10). All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2009-10 version unless otherwise indicated. See also State v. Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d 529, 546, 494 N.W.2d 399 (1993), abrogated on other grounds by Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013). 8 No. 2012AP1593-CR