Neevel was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving. The officer read him the implied consent “informing the accused” form, and Neevel agreed to a blood draw. He moved to suppress, lost, and pleaded no contest to OWI. On appeal, he renews the argument he made in trial court: that the officer should instead have ordered a less intrusive test, such as a breath test. (The officer did, in reading the form, tell Neevel he could have an alternative in addition to the blood draw; Neevel’s contention is that he should have been offered a different test instead of the blood draw.)
The court of appeals does not agree. It notes that Wis. Stat. § 343.305(2) authorizes blood tests and that Neevel doesn’t argue that statute is unconstitutional. (¶11). It rejects Neevel’s argument that Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016), imposed a requirement to offer less intrusive tests before administering a consensual blood draw. (¶17). And it says that even if there was a problem with the implied-consent statute here, the good faith doctrine would preclude suppression of the blood test results. (¶¶21-25).