 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Young3/6/2002
as drawn in a hospital under medically accepted standards. He has not identified any scientific evidence, and this court is aware of none, that he faced any statistically significant chance of harm from needles as any other patient under contemporary advances in drawing blood and laboratory hygiene. Young also fails to explain how his claimed fear of needles constitutes a reasonable objection. He does not claim that he has any medical or religious basis for his fear or objection. His bald assertion is not objectively reasonable. If this court concluded that either of Young's unsubstantiated objections was reasonable, there would be no standard for reasonable objections.
. This court also rejects Young's assertion that his offer to take another chemical test makes his refusal to submit to the blood test reasonable. It is well established in this state that the legislature has given law enforcement agencies the choice to designate which of the three chemical evidentiary tests of a driver's blood that the driver must take first. City of Madison v. Bardwell, 83 Wis. 2d 891, 901, 266 N.W.2d 618 (1978). Therefore, Young's offer to take a different test was meaningless.
. Finally, Young looks to State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, 245 Wis. 2d 206, 629 N.W.2d 625, and urges us to "recognize heightened protections are afforded persons in this State above those recognized under the Fourth Amendment." It is not our understanding that the implied consent law was intended to give greater rights to an alleged drunken driver than he or she has been previously constitutionally afforded. Scales v. State, 64 Wis. 2d 485, 493-94, 219 N.W.2d 286 (1974). Rather, the law's "purpose was to impose a condition on the right to obtain a license to drive on a Wisconsin highway." Id. at 494. "It was intended to facilitate the taking of tests for intoxication and not to inhibit the ability of the state to remove drunken drivers from the highway." Id. Considering that purpose, if public policy demands that drunken drivers should have heightened protections under article I, section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution, the legislature or the supreme court must make that pronouncement. Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 189-90, 560 N.W.2d 246 (1997).
By the Court. -- Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.
Page 1 2 3 4 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|