Court Opinion

ID: 9699502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:28:17.165263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:51.497362
License: Public Domain

*400ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J.
¶ 42. (concurring). I join the majority opinion, but I write in concurrence because I am concerned that the majority opinion's reference to State v. Swanson, 164 Wis. 2d 437, 453-54 n.6, 475 N.W.2d 148 (1991) in footnote 13 will give credence to Swanson's erroneous statement that probable cause to arrest for operating while under the influence of an intoxicant cannot be shown unless a field sobriety test was conducted and the driver failed the test.
¶ 43. By writing separately I intend to clarify that the totality of the circumstances test remains intact for determining whether there is probable cause to arrest, despite the majority's citation to Swanson. Last term, in Washburn County v. Smith,, 2008 WI 23, 308 Wis. 2d 65, 746 N.W.2d 243, this court stated that "Swanson did not announce a general rule requiring field sobriety tests in all cases as a prerequisite for establishing probable cause to arrest a driver for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant," and this court further stated that "the Swanson court's statement pertained to the circumstances of that case" and "probable cause must be assessed on a case-by-case basis." Smith, 308 Wis. 2d 65, ¶¶ 33-34. This court has time and time again stated that probable cause is based upon the totality of the circumstances, and we do so again in the case at hand. See majority op., ¶ 20. As a result, it remains clear that field sobriety tests need not be given in order for there to be a finding of probable cause.
¶ 44. For the foregoing reason I respectfully concur.
¶ 45. I am authorized to state that Justices PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK and MICHAEL J. GABLEMAN join this concurrence.