 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Tangye1/23/2003
intlend, 2002 WI App 314 at . We held that the pressure employed by the statute to obtain a motorist's consent was not unreasonable and affirmed the constitutionality of § 343.305. Id. at . The law set forth in Wintlend is clear and we are obligated to follow it. Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 190, 560 N.W.2d 246, 256 (1997) (stating that we "may not overrule, modify, or withdraw language from a previously published decision of the court of appeals.").
. As we noted in Wintlend, driving is a privilege, not a constitutional right. Wintlend, 2002 WI App 314 at ; see also Kopf v. State, 158 Wis. 2d 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 chemical search for blood alcohol content if arrested for driving while intoxicated. Wis. Stat. § 343.305(2); See also State v. VanLaarhoven, 2001 WI App 275, , 248 Wis. 2d 881, 637 N.W.2d 411. 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.
. Additionally, a chemical test for intoxication is not overly intrusive or unreasonable. Wintlend, 2002 WI App 314 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, 2002 WI App 314 at . Accordingly, we reject Tangye's argument that Wis. Stat. § 343.305 is unconstitutional and affirm the circuit court's judgment of conviction.
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 judgment of conviction.
By the Court. -- Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See 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.
|
|