Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine-Fourth Amendment

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District III

Case Name: County of Trempealeau v. Layne Perry Stenberg

Case No.: 2024AP000281

Officials: Hruz, J.

Focus: Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine-Fourth Amendment

Stenberg was found to have unlawfully refused to submit to a chemical test (blood draw) under Wisconsin’s implied consent law. Stenberg subsequently argued that Wisconsin’s statute (WIS. STAT. § 343.305(2)) is unconstitutional, both facially and as applied, because it violates the unconstitutional conditions doctrine by forcing drivers to give up their Fourth Amendment rights in exchange for the privilege of driving. He also claimed the law fails the “least intrusive means” requirement, asserting that less invasive alternatives to blood draws exist.

The Court of Appeals rejected these arguments, holding that the statute is constitutional, emphasizing that refusal to submit to testing results only in civil penalties (such as license revocation), not criminal punishment, which is permissible under U.S. Supreme Court precedent (e.g., Birchfield v. North Dakota). The law does not compel warrantless searches. If a driver refuses, police must obtain a warrant or rely on a recognized exception before conducting a blood drawing. Thus, drivers do not forfeit their Fourth Amendment rights.

The court also rejected the “least intrusive means” argument, noting that the Fourth Amendment requires reasonableness, not the absolute least intrusive method. Blood draws are widely accepted and constitutionally permissible, and the state is not required to offer alternative tests like breath or urine.

Affirmed.

Decided 04/21/26

Full Text