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.

State v. Swansby

1/30/2003

onality of the implied consent and refusal sanction provisions of Wis. Stat. § 343.305, an issue she squarely raises in this appeal.


. We have since addressed, however, the very constitutional challenge Swansby raises here. We concluded in State v. Wintlend, 2002 WI App 314, No. 02-0965-CR, that the provisions of Wis. Stat. § 343.305 which condition a driver's privilege to operate a motor vehicle on Wisconsin highways on the surrender of his or her right to refuse a chemical test for alcohol concentration do not violate the Fourth Amendment. We relied in part on the supreme court's observation in State v. Neitzel, 95 Wis. 2d 191, 193, 289 N.W.2d 828 (1980), that one who applies for and accepts a license to drive does so on "`the condition that a failure to submit to the chemical tests will result in the ... revocation of his license unless the refusal was reasonable.'" Wintlend, 2002 WI App 314 at . We concluded that, to the extent that this condition constitutes "coercion," it is nonetheless not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, given the minimal intrusion at issue balanced against the State's compelling interest in detecting and deterring drunk driving . Id. at .


. We conclude that our analysis and holding in Wintlend disposes of the remaining arguments Swansby makes in this appeal, and there is thus no need for us to discuss them again at length here. Although Swansby does not expressly concede the foregoing, she impliedly does so in her letter to the court informing us that, in light of the "anticipated publication" of Wintlend, she would not be filing a reply brief. Wintlend has been ordered published, it is thus binding on us, and we must apply it here. See Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 189-90, 560 N.W.2d 246 (1997).


CONCLUSION


. For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the appealed order.


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This opinion will not be published.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.

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.