Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS
NOTICE
DECISION
DATED AND FILED                                                                               This opinion is subject to further editing.   If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
June 7, 2011
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
A. John Voelker                                                                               petition to review an adverse decision by the
Acting Clerk of Court of Appeals                                                              Court of Appeals.   See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.
Cir. Ct. Nos.   2010TR2559
Appeal No.                                                                                    2010AP2967
2010TR2560
STATE OF WISCONSIN                                                                            IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT III
COUNTY OF BROWN,
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
V.
ERIC J. SCHROEDER,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Brown County:
DONALD R. ZUIDMULDER, Judge.   Affirmed.
¶1                                                                                            PETERSON, J.1    Eric Schroeder appeals a judgment of conviction
for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, first
1   This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2).  All references
to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2009-10 version unless otherwise noted.




No.   2010AP2967
offense.   He argues the circuit court erred by denying his motion to prevent the
County from relying on the presumption of admissibility for the blood test result.
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2                                                                                      On April 5, 2010, officer Leonard Webster stopped Schroeder for
speeding and subsequently arrested him for operating while intoxicated.   Webster
took Schroeder to the hospital for a blood draw.    Webster read Schroeder the
Informing the Accused form pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 343.305(4).   There is no
dispute that Schroeder  was adequately warned before submitting to the blood
draw.   The blood specimen was sent to the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene
for testing.  The result was .191.
¶3                                                                                      Following receipt of the test result, Webster was obligated to notify
Schroeder that his license would be administratively suspended.   See WIS. STAT.
§ 343.305(8)(a).     Webster  was  also  required  to  mail  a  form  to  Schroeder
explaining how to obtain review of his administrative suspension.   See WIS. STAT.
§ 343.305(8)(am).     On  April                                                         27,  Webster  mailed  Schroeder  notice  of  his
administrative suspension; however, Webster failed to include the form explaining
how to obtain review of an administrative suspension.   As a result, Schroeder’s
license was not administratively suspended.
¶4                                                                                      Schroeder  moved  the  circuit  court  for  an  order  prohibiting  the
County from relying on the presumption of admissibility for the blood test result.
He argued the County had failed to comply with all the procedures outlined in the
implied consent law and the penalty for noncompliance was the loss of the test
result’s  presumption  of  admissibility.    The  court  denied  Schroeder’s  motion.
2




No.   2010AP2967
Schroeder was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence
of an intoxicant.
DISCUSSION
¶5                                                                                        On appeal, Schroeder asserts the County lost the presumption of
admissibility for the blood test result because Webster failed to provide him with
the form explaining how to obtain review of his administrative suspension.   See
WIS. STAT.  § 343.305(8)(am).   The presumption of admissibility allows the test
result to be admitted into evidence without expert testimony.    See WIS. STAT.
§ 343.305(5)(d) (“[R]esults of a test administered in accordance with this section
are admissible on the issue of whether the person was under the influence of an
intoxicant …. Test results shall be given the effect required under s. 885.235.”);
see also WIS. STAT. § 885.235(1g) (Test results are admissible “if … taken within
3 hours after the event to be proved;” the results are prima facie evidence the
person was under the influence of an intoxicant.).   It is well settled that the County
can lose a test result’s presumption of admissibility if, before administering a test,
an officer fails to give an individual the information outlined in § 343.305(4).   See
State v. Zielke,  137 Wis.  2d  39,  51-52,  403 N.W.2d  427  (1987).    Schroeder,
however,  wishes  to  expand  this  penalty  to  violations  under  subsection
343.305(8)—the procedures for administrative suspension.
¶6    In support of this expansion, Schroeder relies on statements made in
the context of WIS. STAT. § 343.305(4) violations.   In Zielke, 137 Wis. 2d at 49,
our supreme court stated, “[I]f the procedures set forth in sec. 343.305, Stats., are
not followed the State  … loses its right to rely on the automatic admissibility
provisions of the law.”   In State v. Wilke, 152 Wis. 2d 243, 250, 448 N.W.2d 13
(Ct. App. 1989), we stated that substantial compliance with the implied consent
3




No.   2010AP2967
statute is required.   Schroeder argues these statements show the County loses the
presumption  of  admissibility if  there  is  any WIS.  STAT.  § 343.305 procedural
violation.
¶7                                                                                      We disagree.    First, Wilke and Zielke involve violations of WIS.
STAT.  § 343.305(4)—situations where the officer did not give proper warnings
before having a defendant submit to or refuse a chemical test.   See Wilke, 152
Wis. 2d at 247; Zielke, 137 Wis.  2d at 43-44.   In Wilke, the court held,  “The
legislature has clearly expressed its intent that a person be informed of all the
information contained in sec. 343.305(4).”   Wilke, 152 Wis. 2d at 251.   In Zielke,
the court held the penalty for “failure to comply with sec. 343.305(3)(a) [currently
§ 343.305(4)]” is the loss of the presumption of admissibility, not suppression of
evidence.    Zielke,  137 Wis.  2d at  51-52.    Neither case, however, involved a
procedural violation in the context of an administrative suspension.
¶8                                                                                      Schroeder offers no authority holding the loss of the presumption of
admissibility extends  to  procedural  violations  under  WIS.  STAT.  § 343.305(8).
Rather, all of Schroeder’s cases involve an officer’s failure to give a defendant
either all or part of the warnings outlined in § 343.305(4).   See Wilke, 152 Wis. 2d
243 (defendant not given all statutory warnings prior to test); Zielke, 137 Wis. 2d
39; State v. Geraldson, 176 Wis. 2d 487, 500 N.W.2d 415 (Ct. App. 1993).
¶9                                                                                      Further, WIS.  STAT.  § 343.305 has many procedural components.
To hold that the County loses its presumption of admissibility whenever there is a
procedural violation under the  statute  creates the absurd result of  the County
losing  this  presumption  when  procedures  unrelated  to  the  chemical  tests  are
violated.   For example, under Schroeder’s rationale, the County would lose its
presumption of admissibility if the department of transportation fails to conduct “a
4




No.   2010AP2967
hearing  … within  30  days after the date  of  notification  [of  an administrative
suspension],” contrary to WIS. STAT. § 343.305(8)(b)1.; or if the hearing examiner
fails to “conduct the administrative hearing in an informal manner,” contrary to
§ 343.305(8)(b)3.
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
                                                                                       This  opinion  will  not  be  published.     See  WIS.  STAT.  RULE
809.23(1)                                                                              (b)4.
5

Download 65412.pdf

Wisconsin Law