State v. Navdeep S. Brar
898 N.W.2d 499
Wis.2017Background
- Officer stopped Navdeep Brar for speeding, administered sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test (.19), and arrested him for OWI.
- At the station officer read the Informing the Accused form and asked whether Brar would submit to an evidentiary blood test; the officer testified Brar said “of course” and referenced not wanting his license revoked; an audiovisual recording was introduced and the circuit court found the officer credible.
- Brar asked whether a warrant was required; the officer shook his head no; Brar was transported to a hospital where blood was drawn and returned a BAC of .186.
- Brar moved to suppress the blood-test results, arguing lack of consent and involuntariness; the circuit court denied suppression, the court of appeals affirmed, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court majority held (1) the circuit court’s factual finding that Brar consented was not clearly erroneous, and (2) Brar’s consent (including implied/previous statutory consent) was voluntary, so suppression was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brar) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brar consented to the blood draw | Brar contends he did not validly consent (his words were ambiguous/stalling) | State: Brar consented—both by Wisconsin's implied‑consent statute and by his verbal/express responses at the station | Court: Circuit court’s finding that Brar consented was not clearly erroneous; Brar consented (statutory implied consent and an affirmative station response) |
| Whether consent (if any) was voluntary under the Fourth Amendment | Brar: any consent was involuntary or rendered involuntary by officer’s comment that no warrant was needed (misrepresentation) | State: Consent was voluntary; officer’s answer was correct because Brar had already consented and officer had no duty to elaborate | Court: Consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances; officer’s head‑shake did not vitiate voluntariness |
| Whether Wisconsin’s implied‑consent statute by itself satisfies Fourth Amendment consent | Brar: implied consent statute does not equal actual, autonomous Fourth Amendment consent | State: Implied consent and conduct (driving in Wisconsin) supply constitutionally sufficient consent | Court (majority): Implied consent via driving can be constitutionally sufficient and is not a lesser form of consent; concurrence and dissent dispute this reasoning |
| Whether officer’s alleged misstatement about warrants invalidated consent | Brar: officer’s representation (no warrant needed) was a misrepresentation that overbore his will | State: Officer’s response was accurate in context because Brar had already consented; no coercion or deception shown | Court: Misstatement (a head shake) did not render the consent involuntary given context and totality of circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (voluntariness of consent judged under totality of circumstances; no per se requirement of a knowing, intelligent waiver)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (consent to searches may be inferred from context; discussed implied‑consent laws in drunk‑driving context)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (warrantless blood draws require case‑by‑case exigency analysis; recent limiting precedent on warrantless blood tests)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968) (consent induced by assertion of authority or a warrant is invalid)
- State v. Artic, 327 Wis. 2d 392 (2010) (Wisconsin factors for assessing voluntariness of consent)
- State v. Neitzel, 95 Wis. 2d 191 (1980) (discussion of Wisconsin implied‑consent statutory scheme)
- State v. Padley, 354 Wis. 2d 545 (2014) (court of appeals’ view that statutory implied consent differs from express Fourth Amendment consent; discussed and disputed by the Supreme Court majority)