explaining that the defendant and a passenger in his truck falsely told a detective that the defendant had not been driving his truck when it was involved in an OWI-related accident
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the defendant and a passenger in his truck falsely told a detective that the defendant had not been driving his truck when it was involved in an OWI-related accident
- holding that officers may consider indicia of intoxication as a basis for probable cause, even though such indicia may have an innocent explanation
- declining to address State's argument that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule justified war-rantless blood draw where blood draw had been found constitutional under exigent circumstances doctrine
- stating that “a law enforcement officer may consider bloodshot and glassy eyes to be one of several indicators of intoxication”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.
¶ 58. (concurring).
The instant case is part of a trilogy of cases examining the constitutionality of warrantless, nonconsensual blood draws performed on persons suspected of driving under the influence of an intoxicant in light of Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013). The other two cases in this trilogy are State v. Kennedy, 2014 WI 132 , 359 Wis. 2d 454 , 856 N.W.2d 834 , and State v. Foster, 2014 WI 131 , 360 Wis. 2d 12 , 856 N.W.2d 847 . For a discussion of these three opinions, including the instant case, and the issues arising therein, see my dissenting opinion in State v. Foster, 2014 WI 131 , 360 Wis. 2d 12 , 856 N.W.2d 847 .