01-0222 State v. VanLaarhoven

Listen to this article

“In addition to VanLaarhoven’s implied consent to a chemical analysis of his breath, blood or urine, he was given the information in the Informing the Accused form twice-once before a breath sample was attempted and again before the blood sample was taken. Both times, after having been read the Informing the Accused form, VanLaarhoven voluntarily submitted to the testing procedure. [Citation]… A person may revoke consent, however, by simply refusing to take the test. We conclude that by operation of law and by submitting to the tests, VanLaarhoven consented to a taking of a sample of his blood and the chemical analysis of that sample. …

“[State v.] Petrone, [161 Wis. 2d. 530 (1991)] and [United States v.] Snyder, [852 Fed. 2d 471 (9th Cir. 1988)] teach that the examination of evidence seized pursuant to the warrant requirement or an exception to the warrant requirement is an essential part of the seizure and does not require a judicially authorized warrant. Both decisions refuse to permit a defendant to parse the lawful seizure of a blood sample into multiple components, each to be given independent significance for purposes of the warrant requirement.”

Judgment affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist II, Winnebago County, Schmidt, J., Anderson, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Michele Anne Tjader, Madison

For Respondent: Jennifer E. Nashold, Madison; Bradley J. Priebe, Oshkosh