driving statute is the same, the government’s argument understates the significance of Wisconsin’s statutory classification scheme. The Wisconsin legislature’s classification of Devenport’s offense as a civil offense is unambiguous and, more importantly, non-trivial. The different procedural rights that attach in criminal and civil proceedings under Wisconsin law demonstrate the importance of Wisconsin’s classification scheme. For instance, under Wisconsin law a criminal defendant who pleads guilty has the right to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, a right that a defendant who pleads guilty in a civil forfeiture case lacks. County of Racine v. Smith, 122 Wis.2d 431, 362 N.W.2d 439, 441 (1984). See also State v. Peterson, 104 Wis.2d 616, 312 N.W.2d 784, 787 (1981) (<HOLDING>). The Peterson decision discusses at length the
holding discovery rules apply to civil forfeiture proceedings holding that exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings holding that civil rules of pleading not criminal rales apply to traffic offenses punishable by civil forfeiture holding that exclusionary rule does apply to civil forfeiture proceedings holding a forfeiture provision to be a civil action despite its codification in the states criminal code