State v. Brandon Arthur Millard, 2016AP1474-CR, 4/20/17, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
¶10 This court has previously rejected arguments that Daubert applies to a law enforcement officer’s testimony regarding HGN. See State v. VanMeter, No. 2014AP1852, unpublished slip op. (WI App Nov. 24, 2015), and State v. Warren, No. 2012AP1727, unpublished slip op. (WI App Jan. 16, 2013).
¶14 Although not binding precedential authority, I conclude that our reasoning in Warren and VanMeter is persuasive. …. I conclude that Millard’s trial counsel was not deficient for failing to raise a Daubert challenge to Officer Welte’s testimony regarding the HGN test because Officer Welte’s testimony was not scientific, technical, or otherwise specialized and, therefore, Daubert does not apply. ….