The Wisconsin Court of Appeals has upheld the revocation of Mandy June Turpin's driver's license after she refused to submit to a chemical test following an operating while intoxicated (OWI) stop. The decision, made public on November 3, 2026, affects Turpin and others in similar circumstances who may refuse chemical testing under Wisconsin's implied consent law.

The case (docket number 2024AP000031) arose after Turpin was stopped by law enforcement in Superior, Wisconsin. The court's ruling emphasizes the importance of compliance with chemical testing laws and the consequences of refusal, which can include license revocation.

Background

Mandy June Turpin was stopped by Officer Bradley Jago of the Superior Police Department on November 6, 2022, around 12:19 a.m. Jago encountered Turpin's vehicle, which was double parked and blocking traffic in a busy area known for bars and restaurants. After noticing Turpin in the driver's seat, Jago activated his emergency lights. When Turpin did not respond immediately, he waited before approaching her vehicle.

During their interaction, Jago observed signs of potential intoxication, including slurred speech and bloodshot eyes, as well as a faint odor of alcohol. Turpin initially claimed she was a designated driver, stating she had not been drinking. After declining a preliminary breath test, Jago conducted field sobriety tests, which indicated impairment. Turpin was arrested for OWI and taken to the Douglas County Jail, where she refused to take a chemical test.

The circuit court held a two-day hearing regarding Turpin's refusal to submit to chemical testing. Testimonies included accounts from Jago, Officer Austin Lauridsen, and Turpin herself. Turpin argued that she was not operating the vehicle and that law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion to detain her. The circuit court ultimately found the testimony of the officers credible while deeming Turpin's account unbelievable.

The Ruling

The court ruled against Turpin, affirming the circuit court's decision to revoke her driving privileges. The ruling stated, "The credible evidence supports that Jago had sufficient reasonable suspicion to stop Turpin because she stopped in the lane of traffic and was double-parked." The court also noted that Turpin's refusal to submit to a chemical test was unreasonable under the circumstances.

In discussing the definition of "operating" a vehicle, the court referenced Wisconsin law, which defines operating as the physical manipulation of vehicle controls necessary to put it in motion. The court concluded that the circumstantial evidence indicated Turpin had operated the vehicle, despite her claims to the contrary.

Furthermore, the court addressed Turpin's argument regarding the separation of powers, stating that the Department of Transportation (DOT) did not violate this doctrine by adding language to the Informing the Accused form. The court held that the DOT's inclusion of additional information did not constitute legislative action.

Impact

This ruling reinforces the authority of law enforcement to conduct OWI investigations based on reasonable suspicion and the implications of refusing chemical testing. It serves as a reminder that individuals who operate vehicles on Wisconsin roads consent to chemical testing under the state's implied consent law. The decision may influence future cases involving OWI stops and refusals, as it clarifies the standards for establishing reasonable suspicion and the definitions surrounding vehicle operation.

The court's findings also highlight the importance of witness credibility in legal proceedings, as the circuit court's assessment of Turpin's and the officers' testimonies played a significant role in the outcome of the case. This ruling may encourage law enforcement agencies to continue thorough investigations in similar situations, ensuring that the evidence gathered supports their actions during traffic stops.

What's Next

Turpin's case may still have further legal avenues, as she could potentially appeal the decision to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Additionally, her OWI charge remains pending in the circuit court, which may lead to further legal proceedings regarding the underlying offense.