State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Michael J. McManus, Defendant-Appellant. [case No. 87-1815-Cr.]; State…

Summary

Deciding companion appeals together, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that sec. 346.63(1)(b), Stats., unambiguously creates a per se breath-alcohol offense, rendering evidence of the Intoxilyzer 5000's 2,100:1 partition ratio and of a defendant's particular partition ratio irrelevant and properly excludable. The court further held that the breath provision violates neither due process nor equal protection, that the Department of Transportation's approval of the Intoxilyzer 5000 did not usurp legislative authority, and that the statute is not void for vagueness as applied. It also upheld the admission of Pangman's breath test result and expert testimony linking a 0.1 grams-per-210-liters breath alcohol concentration to impairment, and affirmed both convictions.