State v. Charles L. Neevel, 2021AP36, 7/1/21, District 4 (one-judge decision ineligible for publication) case activity (including briefs)

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).