 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Refusal of Eggimann11/21/2002
208, 214, 461 N.W.2d 813, 815 (Ct. App. 1990). As a condition of obtaining a driver's license, a would-be motorist consents to submit to a prescribed chemical test if arrested for driving while intoxicated. Wis. Stat. § 343.305(2). The pertinent time of consent is when a license is obtained. State v. Neitzel, 95 Wis. 2d 191, 193, 289 N.W.2d 828, 830 (1980). And the choice is there: either obtain a license conditioned on submitting to an intoxication test or exercise the right to travel by alternative means. There is no coercion or psychological pressure. The motorist's consent is therefore free and voluntary.
. Additionally, a chemical test for intoxication is not overly intrusive or unreasonable. Wintlend, slip op. at . Both the United States Supreme Court and the Wisconsin Supreme Court have recognized that a blood test is safe, relatively painless and commonplace. South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 563 (1983); State v. Krajewski, 2002 WI 97, , 255 Wis. 2d 98, 648 N.W.2d 385. Because the "bodily intrusion the motorist is being asked to allow ... is a minimal one," the choice between retaining driving privileges and refusing to submit to an intoxication test is not unreasonable. Wintlend, slip op. at . Accordingly, we reject Eggimann's argument that Wis. Stat. § 343.305 is unconstitutional and affirm the circuit court's revocation order.
CONCLUSION
. We conclude that any pressure employed by Wis. Stat. § 343.305 to obtain consent is reasonable and does not violate Fourth Amendment protections. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's revocation order.
By the Court. -- Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)(4).
Page 1 2 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|