State v. Randall, No. 2017AP1518-CR

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Writing for the CourtDANIEL KELLY, J.
Citation930 N.W.2d 223,387 Wis.2d 744,2019 WI 80
Decision Date02 July 2019
Docket NumberNo. 2017AP1518-CR
Parties STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, v. Jessica M. RANDALL, Defendant-Respondent.

387 Wis.2d 744
930 N.W.2d 223
2019 WI 80

STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner,
v.
Jessica M. RANDALL, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 2017AP1518-CR

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oral Argument: March 18, 2019
Opinion Filed: July 2, 2019


For the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs filed by Michael C. Sanders, assistant attorney general, with Brad D. Schimel, former attorney general, on the initial brief and Joshua L. Kaul, attorney general, on the reply brief. There was an oral argument by Michael C. Sanders.

For the defendant-respondent, there was a brief filed by Adam M. Welch and Tracey Wood & Associates, Madison. There was an oral argument by Adam M. Welch.

DANIEL KELLY, J.

387 Wis.2d 749

¶1 A police officer arrested Jessica M. Randall for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant. Ms. Randall gave the officer permission to take a sample of her blood for the purpose of determining its alcohol concentration. But before the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene could test it, she sent a letter revoking the consent she had previously given. The letter also demanded the immediate return or destruction of her blood sample. This, she says, made the subsequent test of her blood sample a violation of her constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. We do not agree, and so we reverse the decision of the court of appeals.1

387 Wis.2d 750

I. BACKGROUND

¶2 After arresting Ms. Randall for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, the police read her a document entitled "Informing the Accused" (the "Form").2 The Form, in pertinent part, asks: "Will you submit to an evidentiary chemical test of your blood?" Ms. Randall consented, and the officer marked the Form accordingly. An hour later, a medical professional withdrew a sample of her blood.

¶3 Two days later (and before her blood sample was tested), Ms. Randall (through her counsel) sent a letter to the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene (the "Laboratory") "revok[ing] any previous consent that she may have provided to the collection and analysis of her blood, assert[ing] her right to privacy in her blood, and demand[ing] that no analysis be run without a specific authorization ...." The letter further said Ms. Randall "does not consent to any person or entity retaining possession of her blood sample, and therefore demands that it be returned to her or destroyed immediately."

930 N.W.2d 226
387 Wis.2d 751

¶4 The Laboratory responded to Ms. Randall's letter with one of its own, in which it advised that it required authorization from the entity submitting the specimen (i.e., the Fitchburg Police Department) to release the requested sample. It did not, however, address the issue of consent. The Laboratory then proceeded to test the specimen, which revealed a blood-alcohol level of 0.210 grams of ethanol per 100 milliliters of her blood. It was unlawful for Ms. Randall to operate a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 or more.

¶5 The Dane County District Attorney's Office charged Ms. Randall with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (in violation of Wis. Stat § 346.63(1)(a) (2017-18)),3 and operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration (in violation of § 346.63(1)(b) ), both as a third offense. Ms. Randall filed two motions to suppress the results of the blood test. In one, she argued that the consent she gave before the blood draw was not free, intelligent, unequivocal, and specific. The circuit court ruled against her, and she did not pursue that issue in the court of appeals or here. In the other motion, she argued that the blood test comprised an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment because she had revoked her consent before the Laboratory conducted the test. The circuit court agreed, concluding that Ms. Randall's revocation of consent left the State with no constitutionally sufficient basis for discovering the amount of alcohol in her blood sample. The State appealed the circuit court's decision granting the motion to suppress.

387 Wis.2d 752

¶6 Based on the rationale of State v. VanLaarhoven, 2001 WI App 275, 248 Wis. 2d 881, 637 N.W.2d 411, and State v. Wantland, 2014 WI 58, 355 Wis. 2d 135, 848 N.W.2d 810, the court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that the Laboratory unconstitutionally tested Ms. Randall's blood. State v. Randall, No. 2017AP1518-CR, ¶13, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. June 14, 2018). We granted the State's petition for review, and now reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand this cause to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶7 Review of an order granting a motion to suppress evidence presents a question of constitutional fact. State v. Delap, 2018 WI 64, ¶26, 382 Wis. 2d 92, 913 N.W.2d 175 (quoting State v. Robinson, 2010 WI 80, ¶22, 327 Wis. 2d 302, 786 N.W.2d 463 ). In considering such questions, we uphold a circuit court's findings of historical fact unless they are clearly erroneous. State v. Iverson, 2015 WI 101, ¶18, 365 Wis. 2d 302, 871 N.W.2d 661 (quoting Robinson, 327 Wis. 2d 302, ¶22, 786 N.W.2d 463 ). But we apply the relevant constitutional principles to those facts de novo. State v. Hogan, 2015 WI 76, ¶32, 364 Wis. 2d 167, 868 N.W.2d 124 (citing State v. Martwick, 2000 WI 5, ¶18, 231 Wis. 2d 801, 604 N.W.2d 552 ).

III. ANALYSIS

¶8 Ms. Randall asks us to declare that, when a suspect consents to a blood test for the purpose of determining the amount of alcohol it contains, she may prevent the State from obtaining that information by

387 Wis.2d 753

withdrawing her consent subsequent to the blood draw but before the laboratory conducts the test. The facts of the case, so far as they are relevant to this issue, are uncontested. Therefore, our analysis focuses on how the Fourth Amendment of the

930 N.W.2d 227

United States Constitution, and Article 1, § 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution, apply to them.

¶9 We begin where one must always begin in assessing constitutional claims—with the text of the documents. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the following:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

U.S. Const. amend. IV. The Wisconsin Constitution uses almost identical language:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Wis. Const. art. 1, § 11. Because of the near equivalence of the language, we generally understand Article 1, § 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution to provide the same constitutional protections as the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

387 Wis.2d 754

State v. Kramer, 2009 WI 14, ¶18, 315 Wis. 2d 414, 759 N.W.2d 598 ; see also State v. Dearborn, 2010 WI 84, ¶14, 327 Wis. 2d 252, 786 N.W.2d 97. Consequently, when we refer to the Fourth Amendment's requirements, we should be understood as referring to the requirements of Art. 1, § 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution as well.

¶10 The Fourth Amendment's reference point with respect to searches and seizures is reasonableness. Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006) ("[T]he ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness[.]’ "). The general rule is that searches and seizures conducted without a warrant are not reasonable. Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 382, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014) ("In the absence of a warrant, a search is reasonable only if it falls within a specific exception to the warrant requirement."). One of the exceptions to the warrant rule is that an individual's consent to the search satisfies the constitutional "reasonableness" requirement. "It is well established that a search is reasonable when the subject consents ...." Birchfield v. North Dakota, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 2185, 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016) ; Thompson v. State, 83 Wis. 2d 134, 139, 265 N.W.2d 467 (1978) ("Some of the exceptions [to the constitutional warrant requirement] are consent to search ...."); Wantland, 355 Wis. 2d 135, ¶20, 848 N.W.2d 810 (" ‘[A] search conducted pursuant to a valid consent is constitutionally permissible.’ ") (quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 222, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973) ). If a search is premised on an individual's consent, it must cease immediately upon revocation of that consent. "One who consents to a search ‘may of course...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • State v. Burch, No. 2019AP1404-CR
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • June 29, 2021
    ...2d 563, 826 N.W.2d 369. "The general rule is that searches and seizures conducted without a warrant are not reasonable." State v. Randall, 2019 WI 80, ¶10, 387 Wis. 2d 744, 930 N.W.2d 223. However, there are a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement. See Riley, 573 U.S. at 382 ("In ......
  • State v. Burch, 2019AP1404-CR
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • June 29, 2021
    ...2d 563, 826 N.W.2d 369. "The general rule is that searches and seizures conducted without a warrant are not reasonable." State v. Randall, 2019 WI 80, ¶10, 387 Wis. 2d 744, 930 N.W.2d 223. However, there are a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement. See Riley, 573 U.S. at 382, 134 ......
  • Jacobson v. State, No. 02-19-00307-CR
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • April 23, 2020
    ...the rationales of the opinions cited by Frescoln , it comes from a recent opinion of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. See State v. Randall , 387 Wis.2d 744, 930 N.W.2d 223 (2019). Randall dealt with the question of whether a warrant was needed for testing when a defendant had consented to a blo......
  • State v. Almeida, 2019-0603
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • September 29, 2021
    ...that drivers suspected of driving while intoxicated have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their BAC. See State v. Randall, 387 Wis.2d 744, 930 N.W.2d 223, 239 (2019) ("[A] defendant arrested for intoxicated driving has no privacy interest in the amount of alcohol in [his or her lawfu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • State v. Burch, No. 2019AP1404-CR
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • June 29, 2021
    ...2d 563, 826 N.W.2d 369. "The general rule is that searches and seizures conducted without a warrant are not reasonable." State v. Randall, 2019 WI 80, ¶10, 387 Wis. 2d 744, 930 N.W.2d 223. However, there are a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement. See Riley, 573 U.S. at 382 ("In ......
  • State v. Burch, 2019AP1404-CR
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • June 29, 2021
    ...2d 563, 826 N.W.2d 369. "The general rule is that searches and seizures conducted without a warrant are not reasonable." State v. Randall, 2019 WI 80, ¶10, 387 Wis. 2d 744, 930 N.W.2d 223. However, there are a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement. See Riley, 573 U.S. at 382, 134 ......
  • Jacobson v. State, No. 02-19-00307-CR
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • April 23, 2020
    ...the rationales of the opinions cited by Frescoln , it comes from a recent opinion of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. See State v. Randall , 387 Wis.2d 744, 930 N.W.2d 223 (2019). Randall dealt with the question of whether a warrant was needed for testing when a defendant had consented to a blo......
  • State v. Almeida, 2019-0603
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • September 29, 2021
    ...that drivers suspected of driving while intoxicated have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their BAC. See State v. Randall, 387 Wis.2d 744, 930 N.W.2d 223, 239 (2019) ("[A] defendant arrested for intoxicated driving has no privacy interest in the amount of alcohol in [his or her lawfu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT