State v. Michael A. Decker
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED July 22, 2004 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of Appeals Appeal No. 04-0230-CR STATE OF WISCONSIN NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 and RULE 809.62. Cir. Ct. No. 02CT003417 IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT IV STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, V. MICHAEL A. DECKER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. APPEAL from judgments of the circuit court for Dane County: GERALD C. NICHOL, Judge. Affirmed. ¶1 DYKMAN, J.1 Michael Decker appeals from judgments of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) second offense and for operating a motor vehicle while having a prohibited alcohol concentration 1 This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(c) (2001-02). All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2001-02 version unless otherwise noted. No. 04-0230-CR second offense in violation of WIS. STAT. § 346.63(1)(a) and (b). He contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to exclude from evidence the results of an Intoximeter EC/IR breath test. Decker asserts that the Department of Transportation approved the instrument using standards. He contends that these standards should have been established following proper rule-promulgation procedures under WIS. STAT. ch. 227, but were not. ¶2 Both parties agree that this case raises the same legal issue and presents the same evidence as County of Dane v. Winsand, 2004 WI App 86, ____ Wis. 2d ____, 679 N.W.2d 885, where we said: Winsand has not established that ¦ the section chief used standards that meet the definition of WIS. STAT. § 227.01(13) but were not promulgated as a rule. In addition, he does not argue that the section chief did not comply with § 343.305(6)(b) or with the regulations in WIS. ADMIN. CODE § TRANS 311. Accordingly, the test results are admissible under § 343.305(5)(d) with the benefits of WIS. STAT. § 885.235. The trial court therefore correctly denied Winsand s motion to exclude the test results. Id., ¶13. ¶3 We therefore affirm. By the Court. Judgments affirmed. Not recommended for publication in the official reports. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(1)(b)4. 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.
