State v. Michael R. Meton, 2025AP141-CR, 8/27/25, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Meton challenges the judgment convicting him of operating with a prohibited alcohol content, 2nd offense. He argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress the blood result after police administered a preliminary breath test without first asking for his consent. COA agrees with the circuit court that suppression of the blood draw because police had independent grounds apart from the PBT to arrest Meton on suspicion of operating while intoxicated.
A deputy located Meton’s truck after receiving a report of a reckless driver. Meton was seated in the driver’s seat, “and appeared to be passed out” with the engine running, the vehicle in drive, and with the brake lights activated. (¶3). Meton did not immediately wake up when the deputy knocked on the window. When he awoke and opened his door, the deputy “immediately detected the odor of an intoxicant” coming from the truck. Meton admitted he had been drinking. In addition, the deputy noticed that his eyes were glassy and bloodshot, and his speech was slurred. (¶4). The deputy conducted field sobriety tests and administered a PBT by placing the device in front of Meton’s face and saying, “Deep breath and blow for me.” (¶¶5-6).
The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing, at which it considered the deputy’s body camera video. The court granted Meton’s motion in part, finding that the deputy had failed to request that he submit to the PBT, as required under Wis. Stat. § 343.303, and excluding the results of that test. But the court declined to suppress all subsequent evidence, including the results from the blood draw, applying the independent source doctrine.
COA makes quick work of Meton’s arguments on appeal (see ¶¶12-14) and affirms, reasoning as follows:
Once Erickson placed Meton under arrest for OWI, he was authorized to seek a blood draw under Wis. Stat. § 343.305(3)(a). Erickson had probable cause to arrest Meton based on his reported reckless driving, that his car was running, not in park and he was initially unresponsive, along with Meton’s slurred speech, glassy eyes, admission of drinking, and performance on field sobriety tests. Those facts provided “a separate reason,” apart from the PBT result, to seek the blood draw. See [State v. Van Linn, 2022 WI 16, ¶14, 401 Wis. 2d 1, 971 N.W.2d 478]. Accordingly, the circuit court correctly determined that suppression of the blood draw was not required because independent grounds apart from the PBT existed for Erickson to request the blood draw.
(¶15).