The evidence presented at Walloch’s refusal hearing supported the finding that Walloch was the person the officers arrested and who refused to submit to chemical testing.
¶7 Both officers confirmed that they identified the person they had arrested as David Walloch. The precise manner in which the officers learned of Walloch’s identity is not essential to a finding that Walloch was the individual who refused the blood draw. From the testimony alone a reasonable fact finder could reasonably infer that the officers learned by some means at the time of the arrest and blood draw that the suspect in their custody was David Francis Walloch. In this case, however, the fact finder, here the circuit court, would not need to rely only on inferences as to how the officers learned of Walloch’s identity because the evidence at the hearing provided this explanation. The Informing the Accused form was admitted into evidence without objection. Accordingly, the circuit court had before it evidence that Walloch was identified, by at least [one officer], at the time of Walloch’s arrest and blood draw as “DAVID FRANCIS WALLOCH” from Walloch’s “WI DL.” In the context in which “WI DL” is used, it could mean only that Walloch was identified by his Wisconsin driver’s license.
 We note that during the refusal hearing, Walloch at no point objected on the basis of lack of foundation or any other ground to the identification of “David Walloch” as the person the officers arrested and who refused the chemical testing. In addition, Walloch had the opportunity to cross-examine the officers on the specific method they utilized to determine the individual they arrested and who had refused the chemical testing was David Walloch. Walloch chose not to conduct such cross-examination.