State v. Wiedmeyer
881 N.W.2d 805
Wis. Ct. App.2016Background
- Wiedmeyer rear-ended another vehicle; officer and witness observed signs consistent with impairment and the officer smelled marijuana. He admitted taking prescription medications and was charged with OWI (controlled substance) and operating while revoked.
- Blood tested negative for alcohol but positive for morphine and zolpidem; analyst had an alcohol-testing permit but not a DHS-issued permit for controlled-substance testing.
- Wisconsin Stat. § 343.305(6)(a) requires tests to be performed by DHS-permitted individuals and DHS-approved laboratories "to be considered valid under this section." DHS in practice had not issued such permits nor approved labs for controlled-substance testing.
- Wiedmeyer moved to suppress the controlled-substance test results, arguing noncompliance with § 343.305(6)(a) made the results inadmissible in his OWI prosecution.
- The circuit court denied suppression; Wiedmeyer sought and obtained permissive appeal. The appellate court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to comply with § 343.305(6)(a) renders chemical test results inadmissible in an OWI prosecution | Wiedmeyer: § 343.305(6)(a) sets the exclusive foundational requirements; noncompliant tests are "invalid under this section" and therefore inadmissible | State: § 343.305(6)(a) governs validity only "under this section" and is a nonexclusive foundation; results may be admitted if another proper foundation is established | The court held § 343.305(6)(a) creates a nonexclusive foundation. Noncompliance makes results invalid under § 343.305 but does not make them per se inadmissible; results may be admitted if another statutory or evidentiary foundation is established. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Peotter, 108 Wis. 2d 359 (Wis. 1982) (permit requirement is a foundational issue; failure to object waives challenge)
- State v. Nellessen, 360 Wis. 2d 493 (Wis. 2014) (standard: statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (Wis. 2004) (statutory interpretation focuses on text and legislative choice)
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1803) (judicial role is to "say what the law is")