Opinion
No. 2013AP1798.
2013-12-27
In the matter of the REFUSAL OF Carl J. OPELT: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Carl J. Opelt, Defendant–Appellant.
While acknowledging that he never responded to the officer with the unqualified “yes” sought by the officer, Opelt argues that he effectively submitted to the test through his responses and “in no way ‘prevented the officers from administering the test.’ ” (Emphasis added.) It is obvious that Opelt was trying to make a game out of not giving the officer the unambiguous answer that the officer made clear he needed in order to complete the Informing the Accused form. Indeed, the officer warned Opelt at one point that Opelt should not play a “game,” to which Opelt responded, in seeming defiance, “I am not playing your game.” The question of equivocation is not resolved by asking whether the word “yes” passed Opelt's lips, as Opelt suggests the circuit court believed. Opelt could have given any variation of an unqualified “yup,” “fine,” “okay,” “sure,” or “correct,” in response to the officer's repeated question to the effect of, “Is that a ‘yes'?” Opelt not only failed to do so, he made sport out of avoiding doing so.