Woman Says She Is Not Going Back to Jail Before Fifth OWI Arrest After 18-Mile Pursuit

A Traffic Stop That Lasted Only Seconds

A Wisconsin deputy approached a stopped sedan on the evening of March 28, 2025 expecting to make contact with its driver. Instead, the encounter changed almost immediately. The car accelerated away, and what had been a traffic stop became an 18-mile pursuit across Taylor and Marathon counties.

The driver was later identified in court records and local reporting as Kallie M. Gajewski of Medford. By the time the pursuit ended, authorities alleged that speeds had climbed well above 100 mph, a child younger than 16 had been inside the vehicle, Gajewski's driver's license was revoked, and the vehicle lacked a court-ordered ignition interlock device. Officers also reported seeing an open bottle of liquor on the passenger-side floor.

The footage supplied for this article gives the incident an unusually personal dimension. Instead of beginning with a dramatic collision or a physical confrontation, it begins with a vehicle on a rural property and then moves through the aftermath of a chase. During the encounter, the woman repeatedly makes clear that she does not want to return to jail. That fear becomes one of the emotional threads running through the video.

But the legal story did not end beside the road. Months later, the case reached a final resolution in Marathon County Circuit Court. In December 2025, Gajewski was convicted on amended charges of fifth-offense operating while intoxicated and attempting to flee or elude an officer. She received prison sentences on both counts, ordered to run concurrently.

That later court outcome makes this more than a bodycam story about an arrest. It allows the full sequence to be reconstructed from the initial attempted stop, through the pursuit and arrest, to the eventual conviction and sentence.

The Video Points to March 28, 2025

The supplied video identifies the incident as occurring on March 28, 2025. Frames from the recording show a sheriff's vehicle and utility-style body-worn footage timestamped that evening. An introductory caption in the video states that a deputy initiated a traffic stop, approached the vehicle, and that the driver accelerated away, leading deputies on an approximately 18-mile pursuit through Marathon and Taylor counties.

Those details match court-based reporting published by WSAW and Wausau Pilot & Review. Both outlets identified Gajewski and described a March 28 pursuit involving the same counties and essentially the same distance.

This match is important. Wisconsin has many repeat OWI cases, and attaching the wrong court history to a bodycam clip would be easy if the identification were based only on a dramatic title. Here, the date, location, pursuit distance, alleged fifth OWI, and surrounding circumstances align.

Why Officers Were Looking for Gajewski

According to WSAW's account of the court documents, officers were attempting to locate Gajewski because they suspected she had violated a no-contact order.

They eventually located her vehicle on State Highway 97 in Taylor County. An officer initiated a traffic stop near Plisch Street and West Village Limit Road.

At that moment, the situation was still relatively contained. The vehicle had stopped and the officer was getting out to approach it.

Then the driver accelerated away.

That decision changed everything that followed.

The Pursuit Moves From Taylor County Toward Marathon County

According to court documents summarized by WSAW, the vehicle reached approximately 75 mph in a 25 mph zone during the early portion of the pursuit. Later, after turning west onto Townline Road from County Road M, the vehicle reportedly reached approximately 110 mph in a 55 mph zone.

Wausau Pilot & Review described the pursuit as exceeding 100 mph. The video itself says the pursuit covered about 18 miles through Taylor and Marathon counties.

At those speeds, the incident was no longer simply about whether a driver would receive a citation or answer questions. Every intersection, curve, driveway, and approaching vehicle added another potential hazard.

High-speed pursuits on rural roads can look deceptively empty on camera. Long stretches may have little traffic. But that does not remove the risk. Rural roads can contain blind hills, narrow shoulders, farm equipment, animals, homes close to the roadway, and drivers who have little warning that a pursuit is approaching.

A Child Was Inside the Vehicle

One of the most consequential facts emerged after the vehicle finally stopped.

Authorities said a child younger than 16 was inside.

The original charging decision reflected that circumstance. Gajewski was charged with fifth-offense OWI with a passenger younger than 16, along with attempting to flee an officer, failure to install an ignition interlock device, and operating while revoked.

Later reporting stated that Gajewski did not have custody of the child.

The presence of the child significantly raised the stakes of the pursuit. It meant that the alleged decisions behind the wheel were not affecting only the driver and pursuing officers. A young passenger was exposed to the same speeds and road conditions.

For accuracy, it is important not to add details that the available reporting does not establish. The public sources reviewed for this article do not provide a reason the child was in the vehicle, and no such explanation is assumed here.

The Pursuit Finally Ends on Schweizer Road

WSAW reported that the vehicle eventually turned into a driveway on Schweizer Road.

The pursuit had covered nearly 18 miles.

The footage then shifts from the speed and uncertainty of the chase to the slower, more complicated work of taking the driver into custody and documenting what officers say they observed.

Bodycam footage can make this transition feel abrupt. One moment officers are focused on catching a moving vehicle. The next, they are standing on a driveway dealing with the person they have been pursuing.

But the danger is not automatically over when the wheels stop. Officers still have to determine who is inside, whether anyone is injured, whether weapons are present, and whether the driver will comply.

"I'm Not Going Back to Jail"

The title attached to the supplied video centers on a statement made during the encounter: "I'm not going back to jail."

That sentence gives the footage a different tone from a typical OWI stop.

It suggests that the driver understood the possibility of incarceration and was reacting to it in real time. The later court record provides context for why another OWI allegation could carry serious consequences.

Gajewski had prior OWI convictions. Wausau Pilot & Review later reported that court records showed four previous OWI convictions dating back to 2008.

This March 2025 case therefore was not charged as a first encounter with Wisconsin's impaired-driving laws. Prosecutors filed it as a fifth offense.

That distinction matters because repeat OWI offenses in Wisconsin can carry felony consequences and increasingly severe penalties.

The License Was Already Revoked

After the stop, the officer learned that Gajewski's driver's license had been revoked for OWI-related noncompliance, according to WSAW.

The vehicle she was driving was also required to have an ignition interlock device.

Officers said it did not.

An ignition interlock device is designed to prevent a vehicle from being started until the driver provides a qualifying breath sample. Courts can order installation following qualifying impaired-driving cases.

The absence of the required device became one of the charges initially filed in the case.

This detail also helps explain why the case was treated as more than an isolated lapse. The allegations occurred against a background of existing driving restrictions that had already been imposed.

An Open Bottle of Liquor Was Reported in the Vehicle

The officer also reported seeing an open bottle of liquor on the floor of the passenger side.

An open container alone does not establish intoxication. It is one piece of evidence that investigators can consider alongside driving behavior, observations of the driver, field tests, breath testing, and other evidence.

Later reporting stated that a preliminary breath test indicated a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10 percent.

For most Wisconsin drivers, the commonly recognized prohibited alcohol concentration is 0.08 percent. But repeat OWI drivers can be subject to a substantially lower legal threshold. Wausau Pilot & Review reported that because of Gajewski's previous convictions, her applicable limit was 0.02 percent.

The Initial Charges

Gajewski was charged March 31, 2025 in Marathon County Circuit Court.

The initial counts reported by local news included fifth-offense operating while intoxicated with a passenger younger than 16, attempting to flee an officer, failure to install an ignition interlock device, and operating while revoked.

At that stage, those counts were accusations. Filing a criminal charge is not the same as a conviction.

That distinction is particularly important when writing about police footage. Videos often circulate online shortly after an arrest, long before the legal case has reached a final result. Titles can easily freeze the story at the accusation stage even if the charges are later amended, dismissed, or resolved differently.

In this case, there is now a later court outcome, so the article can distinguish clearly between what prosecutors initially alleged and what Gajewski was ultimately convicted of.

Bond Was Set at $20,000

At an early court appearance, bond was set at $20,000, according to WSAW.

The bond hearing marked the beginning of the court phase after the roadside arrest.

From that point forward, the central questions were no longer whether officers could stop the fleeing vehicle or take the driver into custody. The questions became evidentiary and legal: what charges could prosecutors prove, how the case would be resolved, and what sentence would follow if there were convictions.

The Case Had a History Before March 2025

Gajewski's prior OWI record was not merely an assertion appearing for the first time in the 2025 charging documents.

A Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision from 2022 documents an earlier case involving Gajewski and a fourth-offense OWI conviction.

The appellate decision concerned an August 2016 incident and legal arguments about her arrest and the admissibility of evidence. The court ultimately affirmed the judgment.

That decision provides independent judicial documentation that the 2025 fifth-offense designation was rooted in a prior OWI history.

It is still important not to overstate what the older case proves about the 2025 incident. A prior conviction does not prove a new allegation. Each case requires its own evidence.

Why the Pursuit Is Central to the Case

The fifth-offense OWI allegation naturally draws attention, but the fleeing count is equally important to understanding what happened on March 28.

If the driver had remained stopped, officers could have conducted the investigation at the roadside.

Instead, prosecutors alleged that she accelerated away as the officer approached.

That choice transformed the incident into a pursuit spanning two counties.

Speeds reported at 75 mph in a 25 mph zone and 110 mph in a 55 mph zone created risks that existed independently of the suspected impairment.

This is why the later plea agreement retained the fleeing charge as one of the two counts that resulted in convictions.

The Bodycam Shows the Human Side of the Arrest

Police reports tend to reduce events to a sequence of actions: attempted stop, acceleration, pursuit, termination, arrest, testing, charges.

Bodycam adds the human behavior between those points.

The footage shows the driver after the chase, officers managing the scene, and the emotional reaction to the prospect of going back to jail.

That reaction does not determine guilt. It does, however, help viewers understand the atmosphere officers were dealing with after the pursuit ended.

The contrast is striking. A vehicle that had reportedly been traveling above 100 mph is now stationary on a rural property. The urgency of the chase gives way to conversation, restraint, evidence collection, and transport.

Why the Story Does Not Need Exaggeration

The verified sequence already contains a strong narrative arc.

Officers are looking for a woman over a suspected no-contact-order violation.

They locate her vehicle.

An officer begins a traffic stop.

The vehicle accelerates away.

The pursuit stretches nearly 18 miles.

Speeds exceed 100 mph.

The vehicle finally turns into a driveway.

Officers discover a child inside.

They report an open liquor bottle and learn that the driver's license is revoked.

Months later, the defendant returns to court and is convicted of fifth-offense OWI and fleeing.

That progression is compelling without inventing a crash, confrontation, injury, or motive that the sources do not establish.

The Court Case Reaches Its Resolution

The most important update came on December 18, 2025.

Wausau Pilot & Review reported that Gajewski appeared in Marathon County Circuit Court before Judge Scott Corbett and was convicted on amended charges of fifth-offense operating while intoxicated and attempting to flee or elude an officer.

The original OWI count involving a passenger younger than 16 was amended to a straight fifth-offense OWI.

The charges for operating without the required ignition interlock device and operating while revoked were dismissed but read into the record for sentencing.

This is a critical legal distinction. The final conviction was not identical to the initial charging package.

The Sentence

Judge Corbett sentenced Gajewski to two years of initial confinement followed by two years of extended supervision on each of the two counts.

The sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other and with other sentences she was already serving.

She received 262 days of jail credit for time already served while the case was pending.

The court also ordered a $3,000 fine and revoked her driver's license for 30 months.

Because the two prison terms run concurrently, they operate at the same time rather than consecutively one after another.

The sentence gives the statement heard in the bodycam a stark later context. The fear of returning to jail expressed during the arrest ultimately became a real prison sentence after the case moved through court.

What Changed Between Arrest and Conviction

The evolution of the charges illustrates why police stories should be updated when court information becomes available.

At arrest, the headline fact was a fifth OWI charge with a young passenger.

At final resolution, the passenger enhancement was no longer part of the OWI count on which Gajewski was convicted.

Other counts were dismissed but read in.

The fleeing allegation remained and became a conviction.

A blog written only from the arrest report would therefore be incomplete today.

The later disposition does not erase what police alleged at the scene, but it changes how those allegations should be described.

The Child's Presence Remains Part of the Incident

Although the final OWI conviction was amended to remove the passenger enhancement, authorities' report that a child was in the vehicle remains part of the factual history described in the criminal complaint and news coverage.

Those are two separate questions.

One concerns what police and prosecutors said happened during the pursuit.

The other concerns the precise offense to which the defendant was ultimately convicted.

Keeping those questions separate avoids the common mistake of treating every fact alleged in an initial complaint as an element of the final conviction.

The Importance of the 0.02 Threshold

Repeat OWI cases can be confusing because many readers know only the standard 0.08 alcohol concentration associated with impaired driving laws.

Wisconsin imposes stricter restrictions on certain drivers with prior OWI histories.

Local reporting in Gajewski's case stated that her applicable prohibited alcohol concentration was 0.02 because of her previous convictions.

The reported preliminary breath result of 0.10 therefore was not merely above the ordinary 0.08 benchmark. It was substantially above the lower threshold applicable to her driving status.

A preliminary breath test is not the same thing as a final laboratory result, and the exact evidentiary role of any test depends on the court record. The responsible approach is to report the figure as authorities and court-based reporting described it.

Why the Ignition Interlock Matters

An ignition interlock order is designed to place a technological barrier between an impaired driver and another OWI offense.

The system requires a breath sample before the vehicle can start and can require additional samples while driving.

Authorities said the vehicle Gajewski was operating did not have the required device.

Although that count was eventually dismissed and read in at sentencing, its presence in the original case helps explain the broader enforcement context.

Officers were not dealing with a driver who had no existing restrictions. The license revocation and interlock requirement reflected prior legal consequences that were already in place.

A Pursuit Across County Lines Requires Coordination

The video introduction describes the pursuit moving through Taylor and Marathon counties.

Crossing jurisdictional boundaries adds another layer to any police pursuit.

Radio traffic, unit positioning, road knowledge, and responsibility for the eventual arrest all have to remain coordinated while the suspect vehicle continues moving.

The criminal charges were ultimately filed in Marathon County, where the pursuit ended and where the case proceeded through circuit court.

What the Video Alone Cannot Establish

Even a fifteen-minute bodycam compilation does not answer every legal question.

The video can show the vehicle, the arrest, statements, officer actions, and portions of the investigation.

It cannot by itself establish the defendant's complete prior record, the exact procedural history of the case, the terms of a plea agreement, or the final sentence.

Those details require court records and reliable reporting.

Conversely, a written criminal complaint cannot fully reproduce the tone and sequence visible in bodycam.

Using both forms of evidence produces a more complete account.

What Is Verified and What Is Not

The strongest verified facts are these: the incident occurred March 28, 2025; Gajewski was located in connection with a suspected no-contact-order violation; an attempted traffic stop became a pursuit; the pursuit lasted nearly 18 miles and crossed from Taylor County into Marathon County; authorities reported speeds above 100 mph; a child younger than 16 was in the vehicle; Gajewski was initially charged with fifth-offense OWI and several related offenses; and she was later convicted of fifth-offense OWI and attempting to flee or elude an officer.

The available sources also report a preliminary breath test of 0.10, an open bottle of liquor in the vehicle, a revoked license, and the absence of a required ignition interlock device.

This article does not invent injuries, a collision, the child's relationship to Gajewski, or any additional substances or offenses not supported by the reviewed sources.

Why This Case Stands Out

The case is memorable not because of one spectacular moment, but because several layers accumulate.

There is the initial decision to accelerate away.

There are the reported triple-digit speeds.

There is the young passenger.

There is the repeat OWI history.

There are existing driving restrictions.

There is the driver's fear of returning to jail.

And finally, there is a court outcome that confirms two felony convictions and a prison sentence.

Each layer changes how the previous one is understood.

The Ending Is Different When the Court Record Is Known

If the story ended with the arrest footage, viewers would be left with allegations and an unanswered question about what happened next.

The December 2025 court result provides that missing ending.

Gajewski was not convicted of every count originally filed.

She was convicted of fifth-offense OWI and fleeing or eluding.

She received two years of initial confinement and two years of extended supervision on each count, served concurrently, along with a fine and license revocation.

That outcome is the difference between an arrest story and a complete case narrative.

A Short Stop, an 18-Mile Chase, and Months in Court

The most striking feature of the incident may be how quickly the first decision reshaped everything afterward.

The officer had already initiated the stop.

The vehicle was stationary.

The deputy approached.

Then the car accelerated away.

From that point, the encounter expanded across county lines, generated a felony fleeing case, exposed a young passenger to a high-speed pursuit, and ultimately contributed to a prison sentence.

The bodycam captures only part of that journey, but when paired with the court record, the full scale of the incident becomes clear.

Watch the Full Incident

The full footage is worth watching for the transition from the attempted stop to the aftermath of the pursuit. Pay attention to how quickly an apparently contained encounter changes, how officers manage the scene once the vehicle finally stops, and how the driver's comments reveal an awareness that the situation could carry consequences far beyond a traffic citation.

Most importantly, the footage should be viewed alongside the later court outcome. The arrest was not the end of the story. In December 2025, the case concluded with convictions for fifth-offense OWI and fleeing or eluding and a prison sentence.