Legal Opinion
Village of Menomonee Falls v. Kunz
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
Decided October 24, 1985No. 84-2453PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtNettesheim, J.
The major issue on this appeal is whether the rule of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, reh’g denied, 385 U.S. 890 (1966), applies to a routine traffic stop where the eventual prosecution is a civil forfeiture proceeding. We hold Miranda does not apply.
The appellant, Paul Kunz, was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant pursuant to Village of Menomonee Falls ordinance no. 6.01, adopting sec. 346.63(1) (a), Stats. Kunz was acquitted of an accompanying charge of operating a motor vehicle with an illegal blood alcohol concentration pursuant to ordinance…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Berkemer v. McCartySupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- City of Madison v. GeierWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
- State v. AlbrightCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1980
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Armijo v. State Ex Rel. Transportation DepartmentNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1987
- State v. MosherCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1998
- State v. PoundsCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1993
- State v. NobleCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2001
- State v. SchneckCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2002
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.