ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 2nd day of December 2010, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.
Madame Justice Orie Melvin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
o mean "an unvacated adjudication of guilt, or a determination that a person has violated or
failed to comply with the law in a court of original jurisdiction or an authorized administrative tribunal"
¶ 49. No one argues that Carter's operating privilege suspensions involved an unvacated adjudication of guilt under the definition of "convictions" or involved "a determination that a person has violated or failed to comply with the law in a court of original jurisdiction."
¶ 50. Illinois "zero tolerance" suspensions are administrative in nature. These suspensions are not adjudications of guilt or "determination[s] that a person has violated or failed to comply with the law in a court of original jurisdiction."
In List, 306 Wis. 2d 752, ¶ 10, the court of appeals determined that an Illinois court's supervision of a defendant was a conviction, that is, a determination that the defendant "violated or failed to comply with the law in a court of original jurisdiction." In contrast, the Illinois "zero tolerance" statutory scheme is administrative and does not provide for a determination in a court of original jurisdiction. SeeArvia v. Madigan, 809 N.E.2d at 98-99.
¶ 51. Because these prior Illinois suspensions are administrative, the pertinent question we must analyze under Wis. Stat. § 340.01(9r) is whether an Illinois "zero tolerance" suspension is a determination that a person has violated or failed to comply with the law in an authorized administrative tribunal. We agree with the State that the Illinois suspensions in the present case were determinations in "an authorized administrative tribunal" that Carter "violated or failed to comply with the law."
¶ 52. In the Illinois "zero tolerance" suspension statutory framework, an initial determination that a person has violated or failed to comply with the law is made by the law enforcement officer. Upon submission of a report of the violation from the police officer to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State appears to automatically affirm the suspension. The statutory procedure allows, however, for an appeal of the suspension to the Secretary of State. This appeal requires the Secretary of State, an authorized administrative tribunal, to make a determination as to whether the person has violated or failed to comply with the law. The decision of the Secretary of State is subject to judicial review.
Arvia v. Madigan, 809 NE.2d 88, 98-99 (111. 2004).
Although Carter did not seek administrative or judicial review of the Secretary of State's initial decision, he had the opportunity to do so. Carter's failure to seek administrative or judicial review in effect renders the decision of the Secretary of State a determination by an authorized administrative tribunal. There is no justification for treating a person who does not seek administrative or judicial review in Illinois more favorably under Wisconsin law than a person who sought administrative or judicial review and lost.
¶ 53. Carter's two prior Illinois "zero tolerance" suspensions are determinations by an authorized administrative tribunal that Carter has violated or failed to comply with the law. Therefore, the two prior Illinois "zero tolerance" suspensions fall within the definition of the word "convictions" under Wis. Stat. §§ 340.01(9r) and 343.307(1)(d).
¶ 54. Because the Illinois "zero tolerance" suspensions are convictions for the purposes of Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1)(d), we continue our. analysis under Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1)(d) to determine the conduct proscribed under Illinois law. The Illinois statutory scheme for "zero tolerance" punishes a person who is less than 21 years of age for refusing to submit to a chemical test, or for using a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration above 0.00.
¶ 55. Analyzed in the context of the language of Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1)(d), an Illinois "zero tolerance" suspension is a conviction under a law of another jurisdiction that prohibits refusal of chemical testing or prohibits using a motor vehicle with an excess or specified range of alcohol concentration. In this case it is undisputed that the Illinois zero tolerance law prohibits a person under the age of 21 from using a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration in excess of 0.00. Thus Carter's Illinois "zero tolerance" suspensions fall squarely within the prohibited conduct listed in Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1)(d).
¶ 56. Because we conclude that the suspensions under Illinois' "zero tolerance" law are convictions under Wis. Stat. §§ 340.01(9r) and 343.307(1)(d) as administrative determinations in an authorized administrative tribunal that a person has violated or failed to comply with a law and that the conduct prohibited under the Illinois law falls squarely within conduct specifically prohibited in Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1)(d), we hold that the circuit court correctly applied Wis. Stat. § 343.3()7(1)(d) in counting Carter's two prior Illinois "zero tolerance" suspensions for purposes of enhancement in sentencing for his OWI offense.
IV
¶ 57. Carter asserts that our interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1)(d) is incorrect because it results in unfairness. He argues that fairness played a factor in the List, Machgan, and Carter decisions in the court of appeals. The court of appeals tended to treat out-of-state violations in the same way similar Wisconsin violations would be treated.
¶ 58. Carter urges us to accept the reasoning of the court of appeals in Machgan that an out-of-state administrative suspension under a "zero tolerance" law should not be counted as a conviction for enhancement purposes when in-state similar revocations are not counted for enhancement purposes.
State v. Machgan, 2007 WI App 263, ¶ 15, 306 Wis. 2d 752, 743 N.W.2d 832.
¶ 59. Carter and Machgan are correct that revocations and suspensions under the Wisconsin "absolute sobriety" law do not count for purposes of penalty enhancement in OWI violations. Yet we now hold that a suspension under the Illinois "zero tolerance" law counts for the purpose of penalty enhancement in OWI violations. Thus we interpret the Wisconsin statutes as imposing a greater penalty on an underage individual driving in Illinois than they impose on the same individual driving in Wisconsin for the same kind of conduct involving the "zero tolerance" or "absolute sobriety" laws.
¶ 60. For example, a person under the legal drinking age driving in South Beloit, Illinois (just over the Wisconsin border) whose chemical test demonstrates a 0.01 blood alcohol concentration and whose operating privilege is suspended, will have that suspension count in Wisconsin as a prior conviction under Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1)(d). But a person under the legal drinking age driving in Beloit, Wisconsin (just over the Illinois border), whose chemical test demonstrates a 0.01 blood alcohol concentration and whose operating privilege is suspended will not have that suspension count in Wisconsin as a prior conviction under § 343.307(1).
¶ 61. Similarly, under Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1)(e) it is clear that Illinois "zero tolerance" revocations and suspensions for refusal to submit to chemical testing count for penalty enhancement, even though a Wisconsin revocation for the same conduct is not counted. Thus, the legislature has expressly chosen to exclude revocations under Wisconsin's "absolute sobriety" statutes from being counted in penalty enhancement, but has not made a similar exclusion for suspensions under out-of-state "zero tolerance" statutes in § 343.307(1)(e).
¶ 62. Carter also argues that our interpretation treats too harshly persons who have not attained the legal drinking age and who are violating a zero tolerance law but are not operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
¶ 63. The Wisconsin legislature could have carved out an exception for out-of-state "zero tolerance" suspensions, similar to the exception it carved out for Wisconsin "absolute sobriety" suspensions. It did not. Instead the legislature has promulgated language in Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1)(d) and (e) to encompass a broad array of convictions, suspensions, and revocations under the laws of another jurisdiction for counting purposes. Under these circumstances, the court cannot usurp the role of the legislature and carve out an exception for suspensions under the Illinois "zero tolerance" laws.
¶ 64. Whether consistency in counting "absolute sobriety" revocations under Wisconsin law and similar "zero tolerance" suspensions under other states' laws is appropriate, and whether burdening youths with multiple convictions by counting suspensions under out-of-state zero tolerance laws for penalty enhancement is appropriate, are policy decisions for the legislature. If consistency is desirable, it is the legislature's role to determine how best to achieve it.
¶ 65. For the reasons set forth, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and affirm the judgment of the circuit court. We conclude that the two prior suspensions of Carter's operating privilege under the Illinois "zero tolerance" law are convictions within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §§ 343.307(1)(d) and 340.01(9r) and that the circuit court appropriately counted them in sentencing Carter for his OWI violation.
By the Court. — The decision of the court of appeals is reversed.
¶ 66. N. PATRICK CROOKS, J., did not participate.
¶ 67. ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. (dissenting).
I believe that those who repeatedly operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) should have their record travel with them, no matter where in the country these offenses were committed. For instance, if the defendant had two prior OWI convictions in Illinois and was subsequently arrested in Wisconsin for OWI, the prior Illinois offenses should be counted for sentence enhancement purposes and the defendant should be charged with OWI third offense. I conclude that this is a result that the legislature intended when it enacted the counting statute, Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1)(d).
¶ 68. I also believe that Wisconsin's "absolute sobriety" law for underage drivers and its Illinois counterpart, called "zero tolerance," are important legislative enactments of public policy. Both provide that it is against the law for persons under the age of 21 to drive if they have consumed even one sip of alcohol — regardless of whether this consumption actually affects their driving or judgment.
¶ 69. I write separately because I conclude that the majority's interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1)(d) is in error. The majority concludes that in enacting Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1)(d), the legislature intended to count a prior out-of-state youthful zero tolerance violation the same as a prior out-of-state OWI offense for purposes of sentence enhancement. A review of the legislative history reveals a very different legislative intent.
¶ 70. The rationale for the introduction of the legislation can be found in several places in the legislative history and can be succinctly stated as follows: "DOT RATIONALE:. . . Without having the ability to treat, out of state OWI convictions as if they had occurred in Wisconsin, we may not be in compliance with the federal requirements." In addition, the legislative history reflects an intent to address offenses related to the lower range of alcohol concentration for commercial carriers. Because I conclude that the majority interpretation is at odds with the legislative history and fails to apply a standard canon of statutory construction, I respectfully dissent.
See CDL Advisory Council, Draft #3 Resolution of Issues Discussed March 6, 1989, at 7 (June 5, 1989) (on file at the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, Madison, Wisconsin) thereinafter CDL Advisory Council Memorandum].
I
¶ 71. As the majority acknowledges, Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1)(d) is a cumbersome statute. Majority op., 29. In relevant part, that statute provides that when calculating the length of an OWI sentence, the court shall count "[c]onvictions under the law of another jurisdiction that prohibits a person from . . . using a motor vehicle . . . with an excess or specified range of alcohol concentration . . . as those or substantially similar terms are used in that jurisdiction's laws." Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1)(d).
The Wisconsin Judicial Benchbook explains that "[t]he offense commonly referred to as OWI relates to three (3) separate, but interrelated offenses." Wisconsin Judicial Benchbook: Criminal and Traffic, TR 1-15 (2010). Wisconsin Stat. § 346.63(1)(a) prohibits driving or operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, controlled substance, controlled substance analog, or any combination that renders a person incapable of safely driving ("OWI"). Wisconsin Stat. § 346.63(1)(am) prohibits driving or operating a motor vehicle with a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance ("OCS"). Wisconsin Stat. § 346.63(1)(b) prohibits driving or operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration ("PAC").
¶ 72. Given that Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1) does not count a violation of Wisconsin's absolute sobriety law, the majority asks whether Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1) "treats a violation of the Illinois `zero tolerance' laws differently than the way it treats a violation of the Wisconsin `absolute sobriety' laws in counting offenses for purposes of sentencing." Majority op., ¶ 18. In answering this question, the majority focuses its examination on the statutory term "conviction." Id., ¶ 31-53. It concludes that an administrative suspension for a violation of the Illinois zero tolerance law is a "conviction" as that term is used in Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1)(d), and that such a conviction should be counted for enhancing the penalty at sentencing.
¶ 73. The problem with the majority's analysis is that it focuses on only part of the statutory language. It does not separately examine whether the legislature intended the phrase "with an excess or specified range of alcohol concentration" to encompass Illinois zero tolerance violations. If it had examined this additional phrase, it would have reached a different conclusion. Instead, the majority simply concludes that the conduct prohibited under the Illinois law "fall[s] squarely within the prohibited conduct listed in Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1)(d)." Id., ¶ 55.
¶ 74. The majority's focus is not surprising, given that the parties focused their arguments on the term "conviction." Neither party advanced any interpretation of the phrase "with an excess or specified range of alcohol concentration." Nevertheless, my review of the legislative history indicates that the legislature intended the phrase "excess or specified range of alcohol concentration" to encompass OWI-related offenses and offenses related to the lower range of alcohol concentration for commercial vehicle operators — not youthful zero-tolerance offenses.
II
¶ 75. The phrase "with an excess or specified range of alcohol concentration" first appeared in the Wisconsin Statutes in 1989. It was introduced by 1989 Wis. Act 105, which significantly amended Wisconsin's driver licensing scheme. Among other changes, the phrase "with an excess or specified range of alcohol concentration" was inserted in Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1) and five other statutes.
See Wis. Stat. §§ 343.307(2), 343.30(10)(b)l, 343.305(10)(b)1, 343.31(2), and 343.315(2)2 (1989-90, as amended by 1989 Wis. Act 105).
¶ 76. The drafting history reveals that the act was intended to implement the federal Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. The legislature requested that the Department of Transportation (DOT) draft legislation to accomplish this goal. It appears that the DOT convened an advisory council to evaluate Wisconsin law in light of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act and to make recommendations.
¶ 77. The advisory council identified what it referred to as "the Mattson problem." In State v. Mattson, 140 Wis. 2d 24, 409 N.W.2d 138 (Ct. App. 1987), the court of appeals held that a Minnesota drunk driving conviction did not count as a prior conviction because Minnesota's OWI statute was not in strict conformity with Wisconsin's OWI statute. Minnesota's statute included several offenses, such as intoxicated snowmobiling, that were not penalized as OWI offenses in Wisconsin. The Mattson holding made it very difficult to count out-of-state OWI offenses as prior convictions, and it appeared to bring Wisconsin law out of compliance with the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
See CDL Advisory Council Memorandum, supra n. 1, at 7.
State v. Mattson, 140 Wis. 2d 24, 29-30, 409 N.W.2d 138 (Ct. App. 1987).
¶ 78. The advisory council explained: "Without the Mattson solution, our ability to consider offenses committed in other states could again be challenged. Without having the ability to treat out of state OWI convictions as if they had occurred in Wisconsin, we may not be in compliance with the federal requirements." Noncompliance would result in a loss of substantial federal highway funds. Thus, it was imperative to add language which would nullify the effect of Mattson.
CDL Advisory Council Memorandum, supra n. 1, at 7.
¶ 79. Based on the advisory council's recommendations, the DOT drafted proposed legislation. It explained that the proposed legislation "revises the present statutory provisions concerning the counting of prior convictions in other states for operating while intoxicated (`OWI') and certain major traffic offenses" and "would count out-of-state OWI offenses as prior offenses even if the other state's law was not completely identical to Wisconsin's law." The new legislation would allow convictions under another state's law to be counted "if that law prohibited the same sort of conduct as Wisconsin's law, regardless of technical or minor substantive differences between the two states' laws."
Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Wisconsin Motor Carrier Safety Act Draft #4, at 2 (August 18, 1989) (on file at the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, Madison, Wisconsin) [hereinafter DOT Dra[t].
Id.
¶ 80. To accomplish this end, the DOT proposed that the legislature insert the new phrase "with an excess alcohol concentration" in several places throughout the statute. It proposed that this phrase be placed in both Wis. Stat. §§ 343.30(10)(b)1 and 343.305(10)(b)1, which provided that under certain circumstances, a court was required to suspend or revoke a person's operating privileges. Prior to the 1989 amendments, both of these statutes read: "If a person has a conviction for any offense under a local ordinance in or a state statute of another state which is in conformity with s. 346.63(1)(a) [OWI] or (b) [PAC] or both, that conviction shall count as a prior conviction under this subdivision.'
¶ 81. The DOT proposed that Wis. Stat. § 343.30(10)(b)l be amended to require suspension of operating privileges when a person has:
a conviction for any offense under a local ordinance in conformity with s. 346.63(1)(a) or (b) or both, or
under the law of another state that prohibits refusal of alcohol testing or
use of a motor vehicle while intoxicated or under, the influence of a controlled substance or a compilation thereof, or
with an excess alcohol concentration, or under the influence of any drug to a degree
that renders the person incapable of safely driving, as those or substantially similar terms are defined in that state's laws.
The DOT proposed that nearly identical language be inserted into Wis. Stat. § 343.305(10)(b)1. In both places, a note from the Office of General Counsel for the DOT explained that "[t]his language is intended to allow counting of out-of-state OWI-related convictions, notwithstanding [ Mattson]."
In the draft of Wis. Stat. § 343.305(10)(b)1, the word "combination" is used instead of "compilation."
DOT Draft, supra n. 7, at 78, 87.
¶ 82. At the same time that the DOT proposed the above modifications, it also proposed modifying Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1), the counting statute which is relevant to Carter's case. Prior to the 1989 amendments, this statute provided in part that "convictions for violations under s. 346.63(1), or a local ordinance in conformity therewith or a local ordinance in or a state statute of another state in conformity therewith" would count for sentencing purposes. Wis. Stat. § 343.307 (1987-88). The DOT proposed adding the following language: " convictions under the law of another state that prohibits refusal of alcohol Resting or use of a motor vehicle while intoxicated or under the influence of a controlled substance, or a combination thereof, or with an excess alcohol concentration, or under the influence of any drug to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving, as those or substantially similar terms are defined in that state's laws."
Id. at 88-89 (emphasis added).
¶ 83. Because the proposed language modifying the counting statute is identical to the proposed language modifying Wis. Stat. §§ 343.30(10)(b)1 and 343.305(10)(b)1, and because the proposals were contemporaneously made, it appears that the intent underlying the DOT's proposed amendments was the same. I conclude that the intent was to "count out-of-state OWI offenses as prior offenses even if the other state's law was not completely identical to Wisconsin's law."
See id. at 2.
¶ 84. The DOT's proposal was sent to the Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB). The LRB retained much of the language that had been proposed by the DOT. However, the LRB modified the phrase "or with an excess alcohol concentration" to "or with an excess or specified range of alcohol concentration" in a draft dated September 28, 1989. This change was likewise reflected in the amendments to Wis. Stat. §§ 343.307(2), 343.30(10)(b)1, 343.305(10)(b)1, 343.31(2), and 343.315(2), and it was passed by the legislature.
See Preliminary Draft of 1989 Wis. Act 105, at 65 (Sept. 28, 1989) (emphasis added) (on file at the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, Madison, Wisconsin).
Wisconsin Stat. § 343.307(2) is the counterpart to the counting statute interpreted today. It comes into play when the offender's current offense is for refusal to take a test rather than OWI. Wisconsin Stat. §§ 343.30(10)(b) and 343.305(10)(b)1, discussed above, provide that under certain circumstances a court must suspend or revoke a person's operating license. Wisconsin Stat. 343.31(2) provides that under certain circumstances the DOT (rather than a court) must suspend or revoke a person's operating license. Finally, Wis. Stat. § 343.315(2), discussed below, provides that a person shall be disqualified from operating a commercial motor vehicle for a period of time upon conviction of certain offenses.
See 1989 Wis. Act 105.
¶ 85. There is no explicit explanation for the LRB's addition of the phrase "or specified range" to the proposed amendments. It likely was to reference the new offense created by the legislation for operating a commercial vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.04-0.08 — a lower blood alcohol concentration than for non-commercial drivers. There is no indication whatsoever that the modification of this language was intended to substantively change the DOT's proposal.
To bring Wisconsin into compliance with the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Wisconsin was required to lower the range of alcohol concentration permitted for commercial motor vehicle operators. The council explained: "Regulations implementing the [Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act] require a .04 BAC standard for commercial driver licensees." Policy Recommendations for Implementing the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act, at 4 (June 30, 1989) (on file at the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, Madison, Wisconsin).
¶ 86. Accordingly, it appears that the LRB's intent was the same as the expressed intent of the DOT — to count OWI-related offenses and offenses related to the lower range of alcohol concentration for commercial vehicle operators. The change was necessary for Wisconsin to come into compliance with the federal Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986.
¶ 87. The analysis that the LRB provided for 1989 Wis. Act 105 clearly shows the purpose and goals of the legislation. The purpose was to come into compliance with the federal law pertaining to the safety of commercial motor vehicles. The goals included removing problem drivers from the highways and establishing uniformity. Finally, new offenses were created related to the operation of commercial vehicles:
This bill implements the requirements of the federal commercial motor vehicle safety act of 1986 and establishes
a classified driver license system. The goals of the federal act are to improve driver quality, remove problem drivers from the highways and to establish uniform procedures. . . . The federal act requires states to establish minimum standards to ensure a uniform national system and to participate in a national information system to exchange information regarding the licensing, suspension or conviction of traffic violations of commercial motor vehicle drivers. . . .
The bill also creates numerous offenses relating to driver licensing and the operation of commercial motor vehicles.
Accordingly, I conclude that the majority's interpretation is at odds with the legislative history.
III
¶ 88. The majority's interpretation also fails to apply a standard canon of statutory construction. When the same phrase is used repeatedly throughout a chapter of the statutes, it is reasonable to deduce that the legislature intended the phrase to have the same meaning each time it appears. Bank Mutual v. S.J. Boyer Constr., Inc., 2010 WI 74, ¶ 31, 326 Wis. 2d 521, 785 N.W.2d 462. This is especially true when the phrase was introduced in multiple places of the statutory chapter at the same time, all as part of the same bill. Like the legislative history, this rule of statutory construction supports the conclusion that the legislature intended the phrase "excess or specified range of alcohol concentration" to encompass OWI-related offenses and offenses related to the lower range of alcohol concentration for commercial vehicle operators.
The Legislative Reference Bureau has provided the following guidance when drafting legislation: "[Legislative style should avoid variation in sentence form and should use identical words for the expression of identical ideas to the point of monotony." Legislative Reference Bureau, Wisconsin Bill Drafting Manual 2011-2012 § 2.01(15)(a) (rev. ed. 2010).
¶ 89. In addition to appearing in the counting statute, the phrase "with an excess or specified range of alcohol concentration" now appears in two other statutes: Wis. Stat. § 343.31 and Wis. Stat. § 343.315(2). It is of great import that when it is used in these other statutes, the phrase "excess or specified range of alcohol concentration" is consistently paired with OWI-related offenses and offenses related to the lower range of alcohol concentration for commercial vehicle operators — not youthful zero-tolerance offenses.
¶ 90. Wisconsin Stat. § 343.31 directs the DOT to revoke operating privileges of anyone convicted of certain Wisconsin and out-of-state offenses. Subsection (1) lists Wisconsin convictions warranting revocation, including convictions for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, injury by intoxicated operation of vehicle, and injury by operation of a commercial motor vehicle when the person has an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more but less than 0.08. Subsection (1) does not provide for revocation upon violation of Wisconsin's absolute sobriety law.
¶ 91. Subsection (2) provides that "[t]he department shall revoke the operating privilege of any resident upon receiving notice" of an out-of-state conviction which, "if committed in this state, would have been cause for revocation under this section or for revocation under s. 343.30(10)." As set forth above, a youthful zero tolerance violation would not have been "cause for revocation under this section." Likewise, a youthful zero tolerance violation would not have been cause for revocation under Wis. Stat. § 343.30(lq). Under that statute, revocation is required if the resident has been convicted of OWI, causing injury by intoxicated use of a vehicle, or homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle.
¶ 92. Similarly, the phrase "with an excess or specified range of alcohol concentration" is found twice within the commercial motor vehicle disqualification statute, Wis. Stat. § 343.315(2). That statute provides that a person shall be disqualified from operating a commercial motor vehicle upon a first conviction of certain offenses. Again, the phrase is paired with OWI-related offenses and offenses related to the lower range of alcohol concentration for commercial vehicle operators — not youthful zero-tolerance offenses.
Wisconsin Stat. § 343.315(2)(a)2 mandates disqualification from operating a commercial motor vehicle upon conviction under two Wisconsin statutes, Wis. Stat. §§ 346.63(1)(b) and (5)(a). Those two statutes prohibit operating a vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration and operating a commercial motor vehicle with a range of blood alcohol concentration between 0.04 and 0.08. Wis. Stat. § 343.315(2)(a)2 also mandates disqualification upon conviction of "the law of another jurisdiction prohibiting driving or operating a commercial motor vehicle while the person's alcohol concentration is 0.04 or more or with an excess or specified range of alcohol concentration, as those or substantially similar terms are used in that jurisdiction's laws."
Wisconsin Stat. 343.315(2)(a)6 mandates disqualification upon conviction under four Wisconsin statutes, Wis. Stat. §§ 346.63(2), 346.63(6), 940.09(1) and 940.25. Those four statutes make it unlawful for any person to cause injury to another by operation of a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, controlled substance, or drug, or while operating with a prohibited alcohol content. Wisconsin Stat. 343.315(2)(a)6 mandates disqualification upon conviction of "the law of another jurisdiction prohibiting causing or inflicting injury, great bodily harm or death through use of a motor vehicle while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol . . . or with an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more or with an excess or specified range of alcohol concentration . . .as those or substantially similar terms are used in that jurisdiction's laws."
¶ 93. Along with the legislative history, the legislature's use of this phrase in similar and contemporaneous statutes bolsters the conclusion that the legislature intended the phrase to encompass OWI-related offenses and offenses related to the lower range of alcohol concentration for commercial vehicle operators — not youthful zero tolerance violations. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.