The Latest: Attorney says blood analysis ruling fractured
The Latest on a state Supreme Court ruling that drunken drivers can't stop blood tests by revoking consent (all times local):
An attorney who unsuccessfully tried to persuade Wisconsin's Supreme Court into ruling that drunken drivers can block blood tests by withdrawing their consent says the court's decision isn't clear.
Jessica Randall was arrested in 2016 for driving under the influence. She agreed to a blood draw but before the sample could be analyzed she revoked her consent and demanded the sample be returned to her or destroyed. The Supreme Court ruled 5-1 on Tuesday that drunken drivers lose their privacy interest in the amount of alcohol in their blood when they're arrested and said Randall's test results could be entered into evidence.
Tracey Wood, one of Randall's attorneys, says she's disappointed but noted the Supreme Court's decision was fractured, with two justices joining in a lead opinion, three concurring with that opinion on different grounds and one dissenting. She says the decision doesn't clarify state law.
Wisconsin's Supreme Court says drunken drivers who consent to a blood draw can't stop the state crime lab from analyzing the sample.
The decision Tuesday involves Jessica Randall. She was arrested in Fitchburg in 2016 for driving under the influence. She agreed to a blood draw but before the crime lab could test it she revoked her consent and demanded the sample be returned to her or destroyed. The lab analyzed the sample anyway. A Dane County judge refused to allow the results into evidence.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-1 that defendants arrested for drunken driving have no privacy interest in the amount of alcohol in their blood so consent to test isn't necessary.
Randall's attorney, Tracey Wood, didn't immediately return a message.
(Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)