State v. Dawn J. Levanduski, 948 N.W.2d 411

Police arrested Dawn Levanduski for OWI (second offense) after observing signs of intoxication.
Officer read the statutory Informing the Accused statement, which included that refusal will revoke driving privileges and that "the test results or the fact that you refused testing can be used against you in court."
Levanduski consented; blood test returned a .269 BAC and she was charged with OWI and prohibited alcohol concentration as a second offense.
Levanduski moved to suppress the blood-results, arguing her consent was involuntary because the officer misstated the law by saying refusal could be used in court despite a constitutional right to refuse a blood draw.
The circuit court granted suppression; the State appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the Informing-the-Accused language correctly stated the law and consent was voluntary.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Informing-the-Accused language that a refusal can be used against the suspect in court misstated the law and rendered consent involuntary	The State: the statutory warning correctly states the law; refusal may be used as evidentiary consequence and reading it does not coerce consent	Levanduski: she had a Fourth Amendment right to refuse a blood draw; telling her refusal could be used at trial misrepresented the law and coerced consent	Court of Appeals reversed suppression: officer correctly read the statutory language; refusal may be used as evidentiary consequence; consent was voluntary

South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (1983) (upheld use of refusal to take BAC test as admissible evidence and distinguished it from Fifth Amendment testimonial compulsion)
Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (recognized implied-consent laws and that refusal consequences, including evidentiary use, are common state tools)
Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (held states cannot criminalize refusal to submit to a blood test but reaffirmed that civil penalties and evidentiary consequences for refusal remain permissible)
State v. Dalton, 383 Wis. 2d 147 (2018) (Wisconsin Supreme Court: criminal penalties based solely on refusal impermissible; acknowledged Birchfield endorses civil and evidentiary consequences)
State v. Zielke, 137 Wis. 2d 39 (1987) (Wisconsin Supreme Court: properly advised refusal evidence may be used at trial as consciousness of guilt)
State v. Bolstad, 124 Wis. 2d 576 (1985) (Wisconsin Supreme Court: refusal to permit blood draw may be submitted as evidence at trial)