State v . Randall L. Shepherd, 2014AP962, 2/5/15, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); click here for docket and briefs
A another day. Another challenge to a pre-McNeely warrantless blood draw bites the dust.
You know the routine. An officer takes a warrantless blood from a defendant. No exigent circumstances exist. Defendant moves to suppress. The State argues that since the blood draw occurred prior to Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S.Ct. 1552 (2013), it is valid under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The officer was relying on State v. Bohling, 173 wis. 2d 529, 494 N.W.2d 399 (1993) when he drew the blood. See State v. Dearborn, 2010 WI 84, 327 Wis. 2d 252, 786 N.W.2d 97 and analysis of the problem here. Predictably, the court of appeals upheld the denial of the defendant’s suppression motion because the officer was relying on clear and established precedent when he obtained the blood draw without a warrant. The only thing On Point can’t figure out is why the court of appeals neglected to cite the recent SCOW decision on this very issue: State v. Foster, 2014 WI 131, ___ Wis. 2d ___, 856 N.W.2d 847. Oops?
