The Associated Press
MADISON, Wisc. (AP) -- A police officer can’t take a blood test from a suspected drunken driver without a warrant if the driver already has submitted to a breath test, a state appeals court ruled Wednesday.
The 2nd District Court of Appeals pointed to a state Supreme Court ruling that said that the police’s urgent need to obtain evidence before alcohol dissipates from a driver’s bloodstream is satisfied by a valid chemical test, such as a breath test.
The case stems from a traffic stop in Sheboygan in February 2002. Police stopped Jacob Faust and gave him a preliminary breath test that showed a 0.13 blood alcohol content.
Faust also gave a second breath test at the police department. That test showed a blood alcohol content of 0.09, just above the 0.08 limit Faust was to adhere to because he had two prior drunken driving convictions, according to the appeals court opinion.
Police then took a blood test from Faust at a hospital without Faust’s consent. That test showed a 0.10 BAC.
The trial court granted Faust’s motion to suppress the results of the blood test after he argued there was no urgent need to justify the blood draw without a warrant.
Prosecutors appealed, arguing the urgency to secure evidence before alcohol leaves a person’s body doesn’t automatically disappear when a single valid chemical test has been performed.
But the appeals court ruled the state Supreme Court ruling was clear, saying a useable chemical test means that police already have collected the evidence they need.