On Point blog, page 9 of 9
OWI – Implied Consent Law – Warnings re: Consequences for Refusal
State v. William K. Nord, 2001 WI App 48, 241 Wis. 2d 387, 625 N.W.2d 302
For Nord: Timothy J. O’Brien
Issue: Whether the implied consent statute, § 343.305(4) violates due process by providing misleading information regarding the consequences for taking or refusing the test.
Holding: The warning that the motorist “will be subject to other penalties” beyond revocation doesn’t overstate the consequences for refusal, because refusal can result in substance assessment,
OWI – Implied Consent Law – Right to Counsel
State v. Dennis J. Reitter, 227 Wis.2d 213, 595 N.W.2d 646 (1999), on certification
For Reitter: Michael C. Witt, Monogue & Witt, S.C.
¶3 … where a defendant expresses no confusion about his or her understanding of the statute, a defendant constructively refuses to take a breathalyzer test when he or she repeatedly requests to speak with an attorney in lieu of submitting to the test. We also hold that because the implied consent law creates statutory privileges,