COA concludes consent to blood draw was free and voluntary despite defendant’s aversion to needles.
Winnebago County v. Michael Jon Potratz, 2025AP1059, 4/29/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the results of his blood draw based on the factors established by SCOW in Artic .
Michael Potratz was arrested for drunk driving and advised of his right to refuse to consent to a blood test. He initially agreed to a blood draw, but had second thoughts at the hospital when a phlebotomist approached him with a needle. The deputy who made the arrest told him he would apply for a warrant if Potratz did not consent and a needle would still be used to draw blood if the warrant was granted. Potratz said he did not want to refuse but did not like needles and conceded, “fine, just do it.” (¶¶ 4-6). But when the nurse talked to him about laying back to have his blood drawn, Potratz shook his head and said he just wanted to go home. The deputy responded, “no, we can’t, blood is what we do.” (¶ 7). The blood was drawn and Potratz pled guilty to operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated after his motion to suppress the results of the blood test was denied.
Potratz argued on appeal that his consent was invalid, but the COA concluded the State met its burden to show consent was free and voluntary. The COA adopted the State’s arguments that the deputy did not use deception or misrepresent facts to obtain Potratz’s consent, did not threaten or intimidate, there was no show of force, Potratz initially consented and did not want to be marked as a refusal, there was no evidence Potratz was particularly susceptible to undue influence or intimidation, and he was informed of his right to refuse consent. (¶ 15).