State v. Luedtke, 851 N.W.2d 837

Luedtke was arrested for Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(am) after a 2009 crash; lab tests showed diazepam, methadone, venlafaxine, cocaine, and benzoylecgonine in his blood.
Blood sample was destroyed February 4, 2010 before Luedtke could retest it independently.
He was charged December 18, 2009; the jury convicted him of the detectable amount statute but acquitted him of driving under the influence.
A DRE opined impairment based on tests and visible puncture marks; the officer searched with consent and found syringes and drug paraphernalia.
Defense moved to suppress the blood results; the trial court denied, trial proceeded, and Luedtke appealed challenging the statute and the destruction of the sample.
The appellate court held the statute constitutional, rejected the due process challenges to destruction, and denied ineffective assistance and a new-trial request.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(am) constitutional?	Luedtke contends it is strict liability and violates due process.	Luedtke argues the statute punishes without knowledge or intent.	Constitutional; statute is a valid strict-liability rule.
Did the destruction of the blood sample violate due process?	Destruction deprived ability to retest and violated due process.	Youngblood standard should apply; destruction was not bad-faith or exculpatory at destruction.	No due process violation; destruction did not require suppression or dismissal.
Was there ineffective assistance of counsel for not raising these issues?	Counsel failed to raise due-process challenges.	Since the issues lacked merit, counsel's performance was not deficient.	No ineffective assistance; issues were meritless.
Should there be a new trial in the interest of justice?	Remand warranted due to potential miscarriage of justice from destruction of evidence.	No miscarriage; real controversy was addressed below.	No new trial required; discretion denied.

State v. Neumann, 348 Wis. 2d 455 (2013 WI 58) (standard of review for constitutionality de novo)
State v. Baron, 318 Wis. 2d 60 (2009 WI 58) (strict interpretation of constitutional requirements)
State v. Jadowski, 272 Wis.2d 418 (2004 WI 68) (upholding strict liability crime in a different context)
State v. Smet, 288 Wis.2d 525 (2005 WI App 263) (substantive due process in drugged driving context)
State v. Greenwold II, 189 Wis.2d 59 (Ct. App. 1994) (Wisconsin due process standard for destruction of evidence)
State v. Disch, 119 Wis.2d 461 (1984) (due process and retention of blood samples prior to retesting)
State v. Ehlen, 119 Wis.2d 451 (1984) (sine qua non of due process regarding original samples)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (due process standard for destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence)