 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Piddington1/27/2000
her the trooper complied with these provisions, because even if he did not, the remedy for a violation lies elsewhere and not in the suppression of evidence in this criminal prosecution. See State v. Mieritz, 193 Wis. 2d 571, 574, 534 N.W.2d 632 (Ct. App. 1995) ("The exclusionary rule requires suppression of evidence `only when the police obtain the evidence in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights,' or in violation of a statute that expressly requires suppression as a sanction.") (citation omitted). Piddington cites no federal or state statute, or any other authority, that includes suppression as a remedy for a violation of the federal laws and state patrol policies he discusses in his brief.
CONCLUSION
. For the reasons discussed above, we reverse the trial court's order suppressing the blood test result and other evidence gathered following Piddington's arrest, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
By the Court. -- Order reversed and cause remanded.
Recommended for publication in the official reports.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|