court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Sporle: Robert J. Jackson; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Implied Consent Procedure, § 343.305(2)
¶12 The officer complied with her obligations to provide the “Informing the Accused” information and to make an alternative test available. The officer informed Sporle that, if he took the requested test, he could have an alternative test free of charge, and she further informed him that the free test would be a urine test. The officer also informed Sporle of his right to further testing at his own expense. Again, the officer was not required to provide the test of Sporle’s choosing. See id. Further, although Sporle alleges that he was misled, this allegation goes nowhere because the information given to Sporle was accurate. See State v. Ludwigson, 212 Wis. 2d 871, 875, 569 N.W.2d 762 (Ct. App. 1997) (stating that additional information must be erroneous to render the informing the accused process inadequate).
