Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Owimotion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge denies city’s motion to lower McDonald BAC allegation; pretrial rescheduled
Summary
In City v. McDonald the judge denied the city’s motion to amend a blood-alcohol allegation from .150 to .149 after reviewing intoxometer readings and expert practice; the court noted a likely higher BAC at the time of driving, declined to grant the amendment, and set a further pretrial for July 15 at 7:45 a.m.
A Stoughton Municipal Court judge on a contested motion declined the city’s request to amend a blood-alcohol-concentration allegation in the case against Ms. McDonald, leaving the charge at the level shown on the citation and scheduling a new pretrial conference.
The city, represented by Noah Drægni, asked the court to amend the BAC allegation from 0.150 to 0.149, saying the slightly lower figure would be in the public interest and noting the defendant’s limited driving record and apparent remorse. Ms. McDonald told the court she accepts responsibility for her actions: “I royally effed up,” she said, describing steps she’d taken since the incident and saying she had begun attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and was working.
Judge Scott Dirks reviewed the intoxometer results entered into evidence and the timing of post-arrest tests. Noting two breath samples that read .151 about two hours after the event, the judge explained typical alcohol dissipation rates and said that, in the judge’s view, the defendant likely had a higher BAC at the time she was driving. The court concluded the facts did not support the city’s proposed amendment and denied the motion.
Dirks told the parties he would be receptive to reconsidering if the defendant completed an alcohol-and-other-drug assessment and followed any recommended treatment, but on the record as it stood he would not adopt the amendment. The city requested more time to pursue resolution; the court set a further phone pretrial for July 15 at 7:45 a.m.
The judge also reviewed statutory consequences discussed in court: if convicted at the higher allegation level, the defendant could face ignition-interlock-device requirements and other statutory penalties; the court emphasized that the IID requirement is a legislative penalty and that financial burden arguments would be weighed against the public-safety purpose of the requirement.
The pretrial date and the court’s denial of the amendment are the most recent procedural developments; the court asked the parties to confer and provide written notice to the defendant and defense counsel about next steps.
