On Point: 3. Evidence

State v. Jessica M. Randall, 2017AP1518, petition for review of unpublished opinion granted 10/9/18; case activity

Issue:

Was Randall entitled to suppression of the results of a test of a blood sample that she voluntarily gave to police under the implied consent law because she informed the lab that she was withdrawing her consent before the lab had analyzed the blood to determine the presence and quantity of drugs and alcohol?

Village of Pleasant Prairie v. Brian Lucas, 2017AP2131, District 2, 8/22/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

This pro se defendant’s challenges to his OWI conviction go nowhere.

State v. Collin M. Gallagher, 2017AP1403, 4/5/18, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Police took Gallagher’s blood by a warrant that the parties agree was supported by probable cause of operating while intoxicated. He argues, though, that the warrant did not, by its terms, authorize the subsequent testing of his blood–or, that if it did authorize testing, its failure to specify what sorts of testing were permitted rendered it an unconstitutional “general warrant.”

State v. Scott F. Ufferman, 2016AP1774-CR, District 3, 11/14/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Ufferman complains the trial court’s evidentiary rulings improperly stymied his defense against the charge of operating with a detectable amount of THC. The court of appeals holds the trial court’s rulings were correct.

State v. Gerald Mitchell, 2015AP304-CR; certification granted 9/11/17; case activity (including briefs)

Issue:

Whether the warrantless blood draw of an unconscious motorist pursuant to Wisconsin’s implied consent law, where no exigent circumstances exist or have been argued, violates the Fourth Amendment.

State v. Navdeep S. Brar, 2017 WI 73, 7/6/17,  affirming an unpublished court of appeals opinion, 2015AP1261-CR; case activity (including briefs)

By obtaining a driver’s license or operating a vehicle in Wisconsin do we automatically give the government consent to draw our blood without a warrant? A nose count reveals the answer remains “maybe.”

State v. Gerald P. Mitchell, 2015AP304-CR; District 2, 5/17/17, certification granted 9/11/17; case activity (including briefs)

Issue:  Whether the warrantless blood draw of an unconscious motorist pursuant to Wisconsin’s implied consent law, where no exigent circumstances exist or have been argued, violates the Fourth Amendment.

State v. Julieann Baehni, 2015AP2263-CR, 4/27/17, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Baehni was charged with OWI, fourth offense. In the circuit she unsuccessfully sought to have the blood draw test results suppressed because she wasn’t given the alternative test she requested. She also collaterally attacked two of her prior convictions, likewise without success. The court of appeals affirms.

State v. Brandon Arthur Millard, 2016AP1474-CR, 4/20/17, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

¶10     This court has previously rejected arguments that Daubert applies to a law enforcement officer’s testimony regarding HGN. See State v. VanMeter, No. 2014AP1852, unpublished slip op. (WI App Nov. 24, 2015), and State v. Warren,

State v. David W. Howes, 2017 WI 18, on certification from the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)

The supreme court granted certification in this case to decide an important question: Does Wisconsin’s implied consent statute create a categorical “consent” exception to the warrant requirement as to unconscious drivers, thus allowing police to collect blood without having to get a warrant or establish exigent circumstances or some other exception? But the court doesn’t answer that question, leaving the law in a muddle. On top of that, the court reverses the circuit court’s suppression order, though without a majority agreement as to why the blood draw was legal, and with some justices invoking a theory the state didn’t argue in the circuit court.