State v. John C. Thorstad, 2000 WI App 199, 238 Wis. 2d 666, 618 N.W.2d 240
For Thorstad: Ralph A. Kalal
Issue: Whether the warrantless blood draw complied with State v. Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d 529, 494 N.W.2d 399 (1993).
Holding: The four-part Bohling test — lawful arrest; reasonable suspicion that draw will show intoxication; method of drawing blood reasonable; no reasonable objection by arrestee to blood draw — was satisfied, and the blood test result therefore isn’t suppressible. ¶¶12-17.
Thostad’s principal argument seems to be that Bohling is wrong and/or that the implied consent statue, § 343.305, is unconstitutional, under Nelson v. City of Irvine, 143 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 1998), but the court of appeals says it doesn’t have the authority to reach such an argument. ¶¶9-10.