On Point blog, page 1 of 1

COA again finds that consent to blood draw was valid, distinguishing Blackman

State v. Justin Dennis Krizan, 2022AP1341-CR, 3/4/25, District III  (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication), case activity

Applying its recent holding in State v. Gore, 2025 WI App 11, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.3d ___ (see our post on Gore here), the COA concludes that Krizan’s consent to a blood draw was voluntary because he was not misinformed about the consequences of refusing to consent.

Read full article >

COA rejects challenges to refusal finding; holds that refusal statute is not unconstitutional

State v. Albert A. Terhune, 2023AP353, 9/19/24, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

In a somewhat complicated OWI appeal, COA ultimately affirms under well-settled legal standards.

Read full article >

COA: Driver does not have right under implied consent statute to refuse blood test when driver proposes to take breath or urine test.

City of Mequon v. Schumacher, 2023AP2411, 7/3/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

COA determines person suspected of driving under the influence does not have right under implied consent statute, Wis. Stat.  § 343.305, to refuse blood test if the person offers to take a breath or urine test instead.

Read full article >

Probable cause for OWI arrest; video of refusal sufficiently authenticated

State v. Steven N. Jackson, 2015AP2682, 9/22/16, District 4 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Steven Jackson was arrested for OWI and also charged with a refusal to submit to a blood test. On appeal of the refusal, he first argues that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him.

Read full article >

Appellate Procedure – Standard of Review: Implied Consent Statute

State v. Darin W. Baratka, 2002 WI App 288, PFR filed 10/20/02
For Baratka: Michael C. Witt

Issue/Holding:

¶7. Application of the implied consent statute to an undisputed set of facts is a question of law that we review independently. Similarly, reconciling constitutional considerations of due process and equal protection with the requirements of the implied consent statute involve questions of law, which we also review independently.

Read full article >