# State v. Michael R. Tullberg

> Wisconsin Supreme Court · December 26, 2014 · 359 Wis. 2d 421

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9805442

## Case

- **Full name:** State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Michael R. Tullberg, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner
- **Court:** Wisconsin Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 26, 2014
- **Citations:** 359 Wis. 2d 421; 857 N.W.2d 120; 2014 WI 134; 2014 Wisc. LEXIS 951
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Abrahamson
- **Judges:** Abrahamson, Ziegler
- **Cited by:** 90 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9805442

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- declining to address State's argument that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule justified warrantless 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”

## Opinion text

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 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9805442. Public record. Not legal advice.