State v. Patrick H. Dalton, 914 N.W.2d 120

Patrick Dalton crashed a car after driving erratically; both he and a passenger were injured and taken to hospitals; deputies observed signs of intoxication.
At the hospital, Dalton was arrested and refused a warrantless blood draw; a deputy nevertheless directed a nurse to draw blood about nine minutes after the refusal; BAC = 0.238.
Dalton pled no contest to OWI (second offense) and OAR; sentencing occurred immediately; court stated Dalton would receive a higher sentence because he refused the blood draw.
Dalton moved postconviction to withdraw his pleas (ineffective assistance for failing to move to suppress the warrantless blood draw) and alternatively for resentencing (court punished refusal); circuit court denied both; court of appeals issued mixed rulings and remanded for a Machner hearing.
On remand the circuit court found counsel reasonably declined a suppression motion because exigent circumstances justified the warrantless draw; it nonetheless refused resentencing; Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed both issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Dalton)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
1) Was counsel ineffective for failing to move to suppress the warrantless blood draw?	Counsel was deficient for not moving to suppress blood taken without a warrant because exigent circumstances did not exist.	Counsel’s performance was reasonable; exigent circumstances (medical needs, scene security, county resource demands, and alcohol dissipation) justified the warrantless draw.	Court held counsel was not ineffective: exigent circumstances existed so a suppression motion would have been meritless.
2) Did the circuit court impermissibly increase Dalton’s sentence because he refused the warrantless blood draw (violating Birchfield)?	The sentencing court explicitly said Dalton would be punished with a higher sentence for refusing the blood draw; this is a criminal penalty for refusal and violates Birchfield.	The court argued refusal in Wisconsin carries civil/evidentiary consequences (not a stand-alone crime) and refusal may be a legitimate sentencing factor reflecting character; so no Birchfield violation.	Court held the sentencing remarks amounted to an explicit criminal penalty for refusal and violated Birchfield; remand for resentencing.

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (holding states may not impose criminal penalties for refusing warrantless blood tests; civil/evidentiary consequences differ)
Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (natural dissipation of alcohol does not create a per se exigency; exigency is case-specific)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance of counsel test: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Tullberg, 359 Wis. 2d 421 (2014) (exigent-circumstances framework for warrantless searches in Wisconsin OWI cases)
State v. Gallion, 270 Wis. 2d 535 (2004) (standards for reviewing sentencing discretion and required on-the-record reasons)