Verkuylen pled to refusing a blood draw contrary to the motorboat implied consent law, Wis. Stat. § 30.684. He raises several arguments about the statutorily required warnings, but the court of appeals finds them all either meritless or forfeited.
Verkuylen first argues that the warden who stopped him was required to inform him in accord with various aspects of the motor vehicle “Informing the Accused” form. See Wis. Stat. § 343.305. The court of appeals disagrees:
Verkuylen’s circuit court briefing reveals that the argument turns on a single provision in the motorboat implied consent law, WIS. STAT. § 30.684(2)(d). That provision incorporates the general implied consent statute’s requirements for performing a blood or urine test, but it does not incorporate the general statute’s requirements for informing the accused. See § 30.684(2)(d) (referencing WIS. STAT. § 343.305(6)). On the contrary, other provisions in § 30.684 make clear that, in the motorboat context, the accused must be informed of different information that does not include the accident-related information that, before the circuit court, Verkuylen complained was missing.
Regarding Verkuylen’s two other arguments–that the warden did not properly warn him in accord with § 30.684, and that implied consent is not actual consent–the court of appeals concludes that these were not raised in the circuit court, and are therefore forfeited. (¶¶9-11).