On Point: b. Blood test

State v. Nicholas J. Nero, 2023AP543, District III, 6/10/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA found that law enforcement had probable cause that Nicholas Nero was driving under the influence, independent from his compelled statement to his probation officer and un-Mirandized statement to a deputy sheriff, and therefore affirmed the circuit court’s order denying his motion to suppress the results of his blood draw.  The COA also found that Nero’s claims for ineffective assistance of counsel at trial were conclusory and undeveloped.

State v. Craig R. Thatcher, 2020AP1734, 2/7/23, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs).

A state trooper stopped Thatcher for a suspected OWI, the trooper read the Informing the Accused Form, and, according to Thatcher, provided additional, misleading information that influenced his decision to consent to a breath test in violation of County of Ozaukee v. Quelle, 198 Wis. 2d 269, 280, 542 N.W.2d 196 (Ct. App. 1995). The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court’s decision to suppress the results of the breath test and also the results of the subsequent blood.

County of Dunn v. Kevin J. Cormican, 2020AP1895, 2/7/23, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

After being convicted of OWI 1st, Cormican appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the results of his blood test. He first argued that the arresting officer gave him information beyond what is on the Informing the Accused (ITA) card that was misleading and affected his decision to consent to the test. He also argued that due to the misleading information, his consent to the blood test was involuntary. The court of appeals affirmed.

State v. Scott W. Heimbruch, 2020 WI App 68; case activity (including briefs)

When an officer arrests a driver either for OWI or for causing death or great bodily harm without suspicion of OWI and requests a chemical test, he must read  the driver the legislatively prescribed “Informing the Accused” form. See §343.305(3) and (4). The form describes the potential penalties the driver faces for refusing the chemical test. In 2017, the Wisconsin Supreme Court declared that the form’s information for drivers accused of causing death or great bodily harm without suspicion OWI was inaccurate. See State v. Blackman, 2017 WI 77, ¶¶5, 38, 377 Wis. 2d 339, 898 N.W.2d 774. Unfortunately, the legislature has never bothered to change the form.

State v. Shannon G. Potocnik, 2019AP523, 4/14/20, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication) case activity (including briefs)

There’s a deep split nationwide about whether the community caretaker doctrine can ever permit entry into a home. Wisconsin has held that it can, and this pro se appeal is of course necessarily fact-bound. But the decision is thorough and provides a good summary of state community-caretaker law as it stands, along with a much briefer discussion of blood draws based on exigency.

State v. Jessica M. Randall, 2019 WI 80, 7/2/19, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

A majority of the supreme court holds that a person who has been arrested for OWI and consented to a blood draw cannot prevent the testing of the blood sample for alcohol or drugs by advising the state she is revoking her consent.

State v. Gerald J. Vanderhoef, 2016AP2052-CR, District 1, 4/30/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Vanderhoef’s silence in response to the “Informing the Accused” form constituted a refusal to consent to a chemical test, so the subsequent blood draw was unlawful. However, the state subpoenaed the results of his urine test, and that evidence was admissible.

State v. Jessica M. Randall, 2017AP1518-Cr, District 4, 6/14/18 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication), review granted 10/9/18, reversed, 2019 WI 80; case activity (including briefs)

Here’s a rare sighting! One district of the court of appeals has declared that it is not bound by a decision addressing the same set of facts issued by another district. This is what you call SCOW bait (sorry to say, given that this is a defense win). Randall was arrested for OWI, an officer read the “Informing the Accused” card, and she agreed to a blood test. A few days later, her lawyer sent the lab a letter withdrawing her consent. The court of appeals held that Randall had a right to withdraw her consent up to the time when blood was actually tested. But just 6 months ago, the court of appeals reached the opposite result in State v. Sumnicht. 

State v. Keith A. Wall, 2017AP2367-CR, District 4, 5/17/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Wall sought the suppression of the results of the test of his blood, which showed he had a BAC of 0.178 after his arrest for OWI. He argues the blood was seized unlawfully because police didn’t have a warrant and they used excessive force to draw the blood. The court of appeals rejects both claims.

State v. Kaitlin C. Sumnicht, 2017AP280-CR, 12/20/17, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Sumnicht was convicted of OWI second. She sought suppression of her blood test results on two grounds. First, she argued that that State did not develop an adequate factual record of her interaction with the deputy who allegedly obtained her consent to a blood test. Second, assuming that she did consent, she argued that she revoked it when her lawyer sent a letter to the State Laboratory of Hygiene before any testing was done and asserted her right to privacy in her blood. The circuit court denied suppression, and the court of appeals affirmed but its reasoning is unsatisfying.