State v. Donald H. Maier
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED NOTICE October 24, 1996 A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See § 808.10 and RULE 809.62, STATS. This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. No. 96-1368 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT IV STATE OF WISCONSIN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DONALD H. MAIER, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Dane County: P. CHARLES JONES, Judge. Affirmed. EICH, C.J.1 Donald Maier, appealing from an order revoking his motor vehicle operating privileges under the implied-consent law for his refusal to submit to a chemical test of his blood-alcohol content, argues that our decision in State v. Babbitt, 188 Wis.2d 349, 525 N.W.2d 102 (Ct. App. 1994), requires police officers to have probable cause to arrest before requesting such a test. 1 This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to § 752.31(2)(c), STATS. No. 96-1368 We held in Babbitt that a driver's refusal to perform a requested field sobriety test is not protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and, therefore, may be used to establish probable cause to arrest for driving while intoxicated. Id. at 362, 525 N.W.2d at 106. Maier suggests that some of the language in Babbitt suggests that a motorist is compelled to cooperate either by performing the test or "providing the incriminating refusal to submit" which has the effect of turning a stop (which does not require probable cause) into an arrest (which does). The question is answered by our recent decision in Dane County v. Campshure, ___ Wis.2d ___, 552 N.W.2d 876 (Ct. App. 1996), where we specifically rejected the argument Maier makes here: that a lawful request by an officer constitutes "compulsion" for Fifth Amendment purposes, thus transforming a lawful investigatory stop into an arrest. Id. at ___, 552 N.W.2d at 878. By the Court. Order affirmed. This opinion will not be published. See RULE 809.23(1)(b)4, STATS. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
