Motor Vehicles – OWI – warrantless blood draws – good faith exception

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Criminal

Motor Vehicles – OWI – warrantless blood draws – good faith exception

Suppression of the evidence obtained from warrantless blood draws is not required where the officers relied on state supreme court precedent at the time.

“Here, the police committed no misconduct and application of the exclusionary rule would be both inappropriate and unnecessary as the police acted in accordance with clear and settled Wisconsin precedent in ordering the warrantless investigatory blood draw. ‘[T]he good-faith exception precludes application of the exclusionary rule where officers conduct a search [or seizure] in objectively reasonable reliance upon clear and settled Wisconsin precedent that is later deemed unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court.’ Id., ¶51. As we explained above, our decision in Bohling was the settled law in Wisconsin for the two decades preceding the decision in McNeely. Our holding in Bohling was clear and straightforward: ‘the dissipation of alcohol from a person’s bloodstream constitutes a sufficient exigency to justify a warrantless blood draw.’ Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d at 547. Officer Asselin and the other police officers involved in this case followed that rule. To apply the exclusionary rule here would be counter to the purposes for which it was created. Where police officers have acted in accordance with clear and settled Wisconsin precedent, there is no misconduct to deter. Dearborn, 327 Wis. 2d 252, ¶44. We see no reason to depart from Dearborn and our application of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. As a result, the officers’ reliance on Bohling was reasonable and the results of Kennedy’s warrantless blood draw will not be suppressed.”

Affirmed.

2012AP523-CR State v. Kennedy

Gableman, J.

Full Text