 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
County of Winnebago v. Wickland5/8/2002
of needles and requested a breath test rather than a blood draw. Wicklund does not make that argument in this case.
. As to his challenge to the warrantless testing of his blood sample, Wicklund acknowledges this court's recent holding in State v. VanLaarhoven, 2001 WI App 275, , 248 Wis. 2d 881, 637 N.W.2d 411, that a warrant is not required for the testing of blood evidence otherwise lawfully seized. Wicklund asserts that VanLaarhoven is not controlling because in that case the defendant apparently did not challenge the constitutionality of the implied consent law, as he has done here. Wicklund, in other words, claims his blood sample was not lawfully seized in the first instance because it was coerced under Wis. Stat. § 343.305. But, as we have noted, Thorstad says otherwise.
. We reject Wicklund's constitutional challenges and affirm the 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This opinion will not be published.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.
|
|