This phrase by Al Davis, the legendary professional football coach, commissioner, and former owner of the Oakland Raiders, sums up our goal in representing our clients and inspires Attorney Pat Stangl as he continues to win cases across the state. Recently, in a two-month period, he won five OWI-PAC-Refusal cases.
1. City of Prescott v. S.H.
His client was charged with OWI-PAC as well an Implied Consent, or Refusal, violation. Refusals are notoriously hard to beat because of the low burden of proof. In a refusal, the burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. Think of a scale tipped at 51%. To make things more difficult, the judge does not even have to find that the police officer’s testimony is believable, only that it is plausible: a very low standard. In this case, his client suffered from diabetes and had a diabetic reaction during the encounter, prompting her insulin pump to sound an audible alert. Attorney Stangl was able to demonstrate that many of his client’s behaviors were consistent with a diabetic reaction, not alcohol impairment, and ultimately was able to successfully resolve the case with the dismissal of the refusal and the amendment of the OWI to Improper Use of a Motor Vehicle for a small forfeiture.
2. City of Fitchburg v. E.R.
Attorney Stangl’s client was charged with OWI 1st and a refusal to submit to a chemical test. Here, City of Fitchburg Police were called to a bowling alley based on a citizen complaint claiming that his client was highly intoxicated and had fallen over in the bushes. When the police showed up, his client was sitting in the driver’s seat of the motor vehicle. The citizen witness also claimed that she saw the lights go in the vehicle. Law enforcement arrested him, claiming that he had operated the motor vehicle. However, Attorney Stangl was able to conclusively demonstrate and convince the prosecutor that given the make and model of the vehicle, the mere fact that his lights went on did not demonstrate, or prove, operation. There were no witnesses to the actual operation—only speculation. To operate a motor vehicle under Wisconsin law, one must physically manipulate the controls of the vehicle to put it in motion. The law is clear that if your vehicle is running and you are sitting in the driver’s seat, that is operation even if the car is not moving. Thanks once again to Attorney Stangl’s diligent investigation, all citations issued against his client were dismissed.
3. County of Washburn v. P.B.
Attorney Stangl’s client was stopped for erratic driving and arrested for OWI-PAC 1st offense. The officer claimed that he could see, in the remote northern wilderness, his client turn onto a gravel road and essentially fishtail on the gravel. Upon being stopped, his client, who submitted to FST testing and had open intoxicants in the vehicle, was arrested. Attorney Stangl was able to demonstrate that because of his client’s very recent consumption of beverages, including those found in the vehicle, the defense had a strong argument that she had unabsorbed alcohol in her bloodstream. Therefore, the breath test result approximately an hour later, which exceeded the legal limit, was not forensically valid.
With respect to the OWI itself, his client should never have been asked to submit to field sobriety tests because she recently had surgery on her foot. Therefore, the field sobriety tests, which are designed for people to fail, were improperly administered. Her miscues on those tests were attributed to her foot injury.
The case was successfully resolved with the dismissal of the Prohibited Alcohol Concentration citation (PAC) and an amendment to the OWI, approved by the court, to Reckless Driving.
4. City of Madison v. T.D.
Attorney Stangl’s client was charged with OWI 1st and was arrested after a crash where she hit a streetlight. She was not charged with Operating with a Prohibited Alcohol Concentration (PAC) or being above the legal limit, but she still faced the OWI charge. In Wisconsin, if you are below the legal limit, the prosecution can still argue impairment on the OWI, because the test result can be used against the defendant as relevant evidence of impairment. Once again, Attorney Stangl was able to convince the prosecution that they would not be able to prevail at trial on the OWI as his client did well on the field sobriety tests. The case was resolved with the OWI being amended to Inattentive Driving.
5. County of Dane v. A.M.
Attorney Stangl’s client was arrested for OWI-PAC 1st, Operating While Suspended, Possession of Open Intoxicants and Non-Registration of Vehicle. The defendant was arrested based upon a Dane County Deputy Sheriff claiming that he had a legal reason to stop the vehicle, because the owner of the vehicle’s license was revoked. However, the owner of the vehicle is a male and his client is a female. In fact, she was wearing a dress that evening. The Deputy’s claim that he could not see who the driver was when she left the bar was inherently suspicious. Attorney Stangl was able to establish that his client, who was out of the vehicle when the Deputy arrived at the next bar and approached her, clearly wasn’t the owner of the vehicle. Attorney Stangl filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence, arguing that once the deputy saw that it was a female driving, the legal reason he may have had to stop the vehicle for Operating After Revocation evaporated. Shortly before the hearing on the Motion to Suppress, the County dismissed all citations against his client.
Don't Wait—Get a Free Consultation with Attorney Stangl
At Stangl Law Offices, S.C., our goal is to win your case. Attorney Stangl continues his extensive record of winning OWI-PAC-Implied Consent Refusal cases and other criminal cases across the State of Wisconsin. If you are facing OWI-PAC-Refusal or other criminal charges, do not hesitate to call us for a free consultation or fill out our free consult form to increase your odds of a successful outcome.
Stangl Law Offices, S.C.