Door County v. Andrew M. LaFond, 2010AP976, District 3, 9/28/10
The court rejects an argument that a driver has a due process right to be informed that a blood sample can be taken forcibly upon refusal to consent to a blood draw.
¶8 Our supreme court has held that the information required by what is now WIS. STAT. § 343.305(4) is all that is required to meet due process requirements. Crandall, 133 Wis. 2d at 259-60. Thus, the “Informing the Accused” form adequately informed LaFond of his rights and responsibilities under the Wisconsin implied consent law. See id. at 259. The form warned LaFond that refusal would result in his license being revoked and would subject him to other penalties. This warning “made it clear that refusing the test was not a ‘safe harbor,’ free of adverse consequences.” Id. at 255 (quoting South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 566 (1983)) (one set of internal quotation marks omitted). LaFond knew that refusal carried consequences, and there was no requirement that he be specifically informed of all the possible consequences. See id. at 259-60. Because LaFond was provided all the information required by § 343.305(4) before he refused to submit to the blood alcohol test, we conclude his due process rights were not violated.