COA: Police reasonably conveyed implied consent warnings to suspected drunk driver although officer commented to driver that not all of the warnings applied.
State v. Sam M. Shareef, 2025AP661, 12/10/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA holds that police reasonably conveyed implied consent warnings to a suspected drunk driver although the officer told the driver that some of the circumstances described on the Informing the Accused form did not apply to him.
Before requesting a breath, blood, or urine test from a person suspected of driving under the influence, police must read the Informing the Accused form to the suspect. Wis. Stat. § 343.305(4). After Sam Shareef was stopped on suspicion of driving under the influence, an officer prefaced his recitation of the form by stating that “some of this stuff I’m going to read you is not going to apply to you.” (¶ 3). Police then subjected Shareef to a blood test, which showed his blood alcohol level was over the legal limit.
Shareef was charged with operating while intoxicated as a second offense and moved to suppress the chemical test of his blood because the officer’s statement to him was insufficient to convey the content of the implied consent warning and to adequately advise Shareef of his due process rights. (¶ 1). The circuit court denied the motion and Shareef pled no-contest but appealed denial of his suppression motion.
Shareef argued that, when the officer told him that some portions of the Informing the Accused form did not apply to him, the officer “effectively misread” the form to him and did not reasonably convey the implied consent warnings. (¶ 9).
The COA rejected Shareef’s argument because the officer’s statement that not everything on the form applied to him was true. For example, Shareef did not operate a vehicle that was involved in an accident that caused death or harm to another, nor did he have a commercial driver’s license. (¶ 10). The COA also noted that, after the form was read to him, Shareef asked questions to clarify his understanding of his rights. (¶ 11). The COA determined the officer’s statement complied with SCOW’s holding in Piddington that police must “reasonably convey” the implied consent warnings and concluded that finding “otherwise would place an undue burden on officers and require perfect, rather than substantial, compliance with Wis. Stat. § 343.305.” (¶ 11).