01
Supply Run
The client drove from the newly opened tavern to a grocery store to obtain business supplies.
Case Study · Cudahy, Milwaukee County
Not GuiltyOWI and PAC Second
A jury acquitted a local bar owner after the defense established that alcohol was consumed after driving and that the State had not proven impaired operation.
Case Snapshot
The Essential Facts
A concise overview of the allegation, court, representation, and central result. These are facts—not links or navigation cards.
ChargesOWI + PAC Second
Reported Test.12
CourtMilwaukee County
AttorneyDan Skarie
The client had recently opened a tavern in Cudahy. During a demanding night, she drove to a grocery store to purchase additional supplies for the business.
After arriving, she consumed alcohol inside the parked vehicle and fell asleep from exhaustion. Police found her while she was still in the vehicle.
The defense used the receipt, the open container, the vehicle-control evidence, and the client’s circumstances to separate post-driving intoxication from impaired operation.
What the State Had to Prove
The prosecution needed to prove impaired operation—not merely that the client appeared intoxicated when officers arrived.
Case Timeline
How the Matter Developed
The sequence matters because each stage carries its own evidentiary and legal requirements.
02
Post-Driving Drinking
After the drive ended, she consumed alcohol in the parked vehicle.
03
Police Contact
Officers arrived after she had fallen asleep inside the vehicle.
04
Trial Evidence
The receipt, container, vehicle controls, and timeline were presented to the jury.
05
Verdict
The jury acquitted the client of OWI Second and PAC Second.
Evidence Review
What Mattered Most
The defense focused on the evidence capable of changing how the allegation was understood.
01
Purchase Receipt
The receipt corroborated when the alcohol was obtained and supported the defense timeline.
02
Vehicle Controls
The defense distinguished a running vehicle from legally sufficient proof of impaired operation.
03
Client Circumstances
The new business, long hours, and exhaustion helped explain why the client remained in the parking lot.
Defense Strategy
Separate Driving From Later Intoxication
The defense did not need to deny that the client appeared impaired when police arrived. It focused on the element the State could not establish: impaired operation.
- Use the purchase receipt to establish timing
- Explain the open container consistently with post-driving consumption
- Examine whether the client manipulated any vehicle controls while impaired
- Present the client’s work schedule and exhaustion as context
- Frame the verdict around proof, not assumptions
Final Outcome
Not Guilty on Both Counts
The jury concluded that the State had not proven impaired operation or that the alcohol had been consumed before the client drove.
- OWI Second: Not Guilty
- PAC Second: Not Guilty
- Post-driving consumption theory accepted
- Reasonable doubt established on operation and timing
Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every matter depends on its own facts, evidence, court, prosecutor, prior record, and applicable law.
Case
Insight
Insight
“A chemical result may show a person’s condition later without proving when the alcohol was consumed or whether the person drove in that condition.”
Case study takeaway
Questions This Case Raises
Legal Context
These answers are general. The correct analysis depends on the facts, notices, evidence, and procedural history of the individual matter.
It may be relevant when credible evidence shows that the alcohol was consumed only after operation ended.
Operation is fact-specific. The State must prove the legally required control or manipulation of the vehicle.
It supported the timing of the purchase and corroborated the client’s account.
A criminal OWI charge can involve a jury trial, subject to the charge and court procedure.
More Results
Related OWI Case Studies
Talk With a Wisconsin OWI Defense Attorney
Let’s Review
Your Case
Share the basic facts about the stop, testing, prior record, court date, and any license or refusal notices.