Background
A citizen reported a red truck with blue collector plates making unusually wide turns and otherwise driving erratically. Jefferson County Deputy Ashley Nedanovski located a matching truck and saw it stop in a left-turn lane despite a green light, remain there after oncoming traffic cleared, and proceed straight from the turn lane after the light cycled. While stopped at the intersection, the driver partially leaned out of the truck and looked behind him.
After stopping the truck, Nedanovski identified Juan Carlos Garcia as its sole occupant. She smelled intoxicants and observed bloodshot eyes, slow and slurred speech, and unusually slow movements. Garcia did not directly answer questions about whether he had been drinking. A second deputy made similar observations and saw that Garcia was unsteady and stumbled. Officers arrested Garcia before completing the planned field-sobriety testing. The circuit court denied Garcia’s suppression motion and, after a joint suppression hearing and bench trial, entered judgment on the first-offense operating-while-under-the-influence citation.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the officers had probable cause to believe Garcia had operated while under the influence. Under the totality of the circumstances, the citizen’s report, Garcia’s unusual conduct at the intersection, the odor of intoxicants, his bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, slow movements, evasive answers, and unsteadiness supplied ample grounds for the arrest.
The court assumed without deciding that Garcia’s performance during field-sobriety testing contributed nothing to probable cause because the record was ambiguous about whether the horizontal-gaze-nystagmus test had been administered reliably. Even without the test results, the evidence indicated impairment rather than merely some alcohol consumption. The court also distinguished State v. Faruzzi, where the evidence included fewer signs of impaired driving and intoxication.
Key Takeaways
- Probable cause for an OWI arrest depends on the totality of the circumstances and does not require completed or reliable field-sobriety tests.
- A citizen’s report of erratic driving may support probable cause when corroborated by an officer’s observations and other signs of intoxication.
- The absence of commonly encountered indicators, such as crossing a lane line, does not defeat probable cause when the remaining evidence reasonably indicates impaired driving.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that Wisconsin officers may have probable cause to make an OWI arrest before field-sobriety testing is completed when unusual driving and multiple physical signs of intoxication collectively indicate impairment. It also shows that courts assess the combined weight of the evidence rather than requiring any particular symptom or driving violation.
The opinion is a one-judge, unpublished decision and therefore is not binding precedent, although Wisconsin rules permit qualifying unpublished opinions issued after July 1, 2009, to be cited for persuasive value.