State v. Patrick K. Kozel
373 Wis. 2d 1
| Wis. | 2017Background
- Kozel was stopped for impaired driving, arrested after field tests and a preliminary breath test (0.17), and taken to Sauk County jail.
- At the jail an EMT-intermediate (Matthew Goethel), employed by Baraboo District Ambulance Service (BDAS), drew two blood samples after Kozel consented; lab testing showed 0.196 BAC.
- Goethel had EMT certification, training in blood draws, had performed over 100 draws, and worked under BDAS medical director Dr. Manuel Mendoza, who issued a written standing order authorizing EMTs to perform legal blood draws at law-enforcement request.
- At the suppression hearing the State introduced Goethel’s testimony and Mendoza’s August 21, 2009 letter; there was no evidence Mendoza personally observed draws, inspected the jail draw room, or maintained written protocols for the jail draws.
- The court of appeals reversed and ordered suppression, holding the State failed to prove the EMT was "acting under the direction of a physician;" the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Kozel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the EMT who drew blood was a "person acting under the direction of a physician" under Wis. Stat. § 343.305(5)(b) | Mendoza’s written standing order, his role as BDAS medical director, the EMT’s training and availability of physician backup show the EMT acted under physician direction | Authorization by a physician (standing order/letter) is not the same as guidance or supervision; State presented insufficient evidence of actual direction/supervision | The EMT was acting under the direction of a physician; the standing order, training, and physician accessibility satisfied the statute. |
| Whether the blood draw was constitutionally reasonable under the Fourth Amendment | The EMT was trained and experienced, used sterile equipment, the draw room was clean, and physician backup was available; these facts show the draw was reasonable | A blood draw by an EMT in a jail without physician supervision or written protocols and without evidence of proper sanitary standards is too intrusive and unreasonable | The blood draw was constitutionally reasonable: licensed EMT, accepted procedures followed, sterile kit, clean room, and no objection by defendant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (established that blood draws are searches and assessed reasonableness based on who performed the draw and the environment)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (recognized that blood tests pierce the skin and implicate significant privacy and bodily integrity concerns)
- State v. Penzkofer, 184 Wis. 2d 262 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994) (upheld blood draw where laboratory technician operated under a pathologist’s written protocol and general supervision)