DUI Lawyers Directory. Search for a dui lawyer near you. Operating a vehicle while drinking could cause judicial actions.
 Zip Code Search for DUI Lawyers
Defending Alleged Drunk Driving Criminal Acts Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Membership at DUI Defenders Discuss issues related to dui/dwi/owi Contact Us about a DUI Lawyer
facebook.com/MyDUI

  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

County of Iowa v. Bilse

9/30/1999

BT and the sobriety tests.


B. Blood Test


Bilse argues that the blood test administered after his arrest violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. He contends that the test was an unreasonable seizure of evidence since the Iowa County Sheriff's Department could have used a less intrusive breath test. He also asserts that the warrantless blood draw was not justified by exigent circumstances because, in his case, a breath test would have more quickly provided the same evidence.


Bilse bases his challenge of the blood test on the Ninth Circuit decision in Nelson v. City of Irvine, 143 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 444 (1998). In that case, the Ninth Circuit held that when an arrestee consents to a breath or urine test, and such tests are available, to require a blood test is a violation of the Fourth Amendment because it is unreasonable and not justified by exigent circumstances. See id. at 1207. However, in Nelson, the court addressed California's implied consent law, which, at the time, allowed the arrestee to choose between a blood, breath or urine test. Id. at 1201. In contrast, Wisconsin's implied consent law allows the law enforcement agency to designate which test will be administered first. See § 343.305(2), Stats. Gunderson's decision to administer a blood test was thus justified by statute.


Essentially, Bilse challenges the constitutionality of Wisconsin's implied consent law. When the constitutionality of a statute is challenged, the attorney general must be notified and given an opportunity to be heard. See Midwest Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nicolazzi, 138 Wis.2d 192, 202, 405 N.W.2d 732, 737 (Ct. App. 1987). There is no record evidence that Bilse has notified the attorney general and we therefore do not review this issue.


By the Court. -- Judgment affirmed.


Not recommended for publication in the official reports. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)4, Stats.






Page 1 2 3 

Wisconsin DUI Attorneys    DUI Lawyers


  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

DUI Driving Defined Highway Defined
Under Influence Defined DUI/3 Strikes DUI & Manslaughter
DUI & Murder DUI Punishment Sobriety Checkpoints
DMV's Role in DUI Revocation vs. Suspension Field Sobriety Testing
Speed Measurement Prior DUI Convictions Drawing Blood & Consent
Refusal to Test DUI Lawyers Testimonials by Member DUI Lawyers
DUI Articles Ignition Interlock Implied Consent
Summary DUI License Suspension In-home Arrest Vehicle Defined
FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Partner Websites  |  Draeger FAQ
SiteMap | DUI Blog | DUI Lawyers | DUI Attorneys | Trading Partners | Member Agreement | Terms of Service
Attorneys Click Here | DUI Case Laws | FAQ | DUI Forum | Directory of DUI Attorneys | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2004. “DUI Defenders”. All rights reserved.