15 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wisconsin courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scottgreen2 sentences2017Without citation, the majority opinion states: "Ordinarily, evidence obtained through an unlawful search is excluded at trial."5 This is contrary to well-established law when innocent police conduct is the foundation from which objection to a search arises. ¶141 The Supreme Court has concluded that "the [exclusionary] rule's 'costly toll' upon truth-seeking and law enforcement objectives presents a high obstacle for those urging application of the rule." Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 364-65 (1998) (quoting United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 734 (1980)). 2017Without citation, the majority opinion states: "Ordinarily, evidence obtained through an unlawful search is excluded at trial."5 This is contrary to well-established law when innocent police conduct is the foundation from which objection to a search arises. ¶141 The Supreme Court has concluded that "the [exclusionary] rule's 'costly toll' upon truth-seeking and law enforcement objectives presents a high obstacle for those urging application of the rule." Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 364-65 (1998) (quoting United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 734 (1980)). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Paynergreen2 sentences2017Without citation, the majority opinion states: "Ordinarily, evidence obtained through an unlawful search is excluded at trial."5 This is contrary to well-established law when innocent police conduct is the foundation from which objection to a search arises. ¶141 The Supreme Court has concluded that "the [exclusionary] rule's 'costly toll' upon truth-seeking and law enforcement objectives presents a high obstacle for those urging application of the rule." Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 364-65 (1998) (quoting United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 734 (1980)). 2017Without citation, the majority opinion states: "Ordinarily, evidence obtained through an unlawful search is excluded at trial."5 This is contrary to well-established law when innocent police conduct is the foundation from which objection to a search arises. ¶141 The Supreme Court has concluded that "the [exclusionary] rule's 'costly toll' upon truth-seeking and law enforcement objectives presents a high obstacle for those urging application of the rule." Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 364-65 (1998) (quoting United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 734 (1980)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Zielkegreen2 sentences2002Id. at 41 . 2002Id. at 41 . | 1 | 2 |
Young v. Younggreen2 sentences2022See Young v. Young, 124 Wis. 2d 306, 312 , 369 N.W.2d 178 (Ct. App. 1985) (appellate courts may “refuse to consider an argument without legal authority specifically supporting the relevant propositions”). ¶12 Because there was probable cause to arrest Smolarek, the results of the blood test were admissible. 2022See Young v. Young, 124 Wis. 2d 306, 312 , 369 N.W.2d 178 (Ct. App. 1985) (appellate courts may “refuse to consider an argument without legal authority specifically supporting the relevant propositions”). ¶12 Because there was probable cause to arrest Smolarek, the results of the blood test were admissible. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Daggett
green
2 sentences2017Daggett, 250 Wis. 2d 112, ¶5 . 2017Daggett, 250 Wis. 2d 112, ¶5 . | 3 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Michael R. Tullberg
green
2 sentences2025The State appeals the suppression order.2 DISCUSSION ¶7 “A blood draw to uncover evidence of a crime is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Tullberg, 2014 WI 134, ¶31 , 359 Wis. 2d 421 , 857 N.W.2d 120 . 2025The State appeals the suppression order.2 DISCUSSION ¶7 “A blood draw to uncover evidence of a crime is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Tullberg, 2014 WI 134, ¶31 , 359 Wis. 2d 421 , 857 N.W.2d 120 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Mitchell v. Wisconsin
green
2 sentences2022“Mitchell remained unconscious while the sample was taken, and analysis of his blood showed that his BAC … was 0.222%.” Id. ¶5 Charged with two related drunk-driving violations, Mitchell moved to suppress the results of the blood test, contending “it violated his Fourth Amendment right against ‘unreasonable searches’ because it was conducted without a warrant.” Id. 2022“Mitchell remained unconscious while the sample was taken, and analysis of his blood showed that his BAC … was 0.222%.” Id. ¶5 Charged with two related drunk-driving violations, Mitchell moved to suppress the results of the blood test, contending “it violated his Fourth Amendment right against ‘unreasonable searches’ because it was conducted without a warrant.” Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. VanLaarhoven
green
1 sentence2019Id. , ¶3. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Padley
green
1 sentence2016Padley, 354 Wis. 2d 545, ¶ 2 . ¶ 10. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Renard
green
2 sentences2004By the Court. — Judgment affirmed. 1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2001-02 version unless otherwise noted. 2 Because of this conclusion, we do not address the State's argument that, even if Schmidt had made a proper request for an additional test, the officer's failure to administer an additional test does not entitle Schmidt to the remedy of suppression of the blood test results. 3 The refusal to submit to a test is, in itself, grounds for penalties under Wis. Stat. § 343.305 (9), including revocation of the person's operating privilege. 4 In addition to distinguishing S 2004By the Court. — Judgment affirmed. 1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2001-02 version unless otherwise noted. 2 Because of this conclusion, we do not address the State's argument that, even if Schmidt had made a proper request for an additional test, the officer's failure to administer an additional test does not entitle Schmidt to the remedy of suppression of the blood test results. 3 The refusal to submit to a test is, in itself, grounds for penalties under Wis. Stat. § 343.305 (9), including revocation of the person's operating privilege. 4 In addition to distinguishing S | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Piddington
green
2 sentences2004By the Court. — Judgment affirmed. 1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2001-02 version unless otherwise noted. 2 Because of this conclusion, we do not address the State's argument that, even if Schmidt had made a proper request for an additional test, the officer's failure to administer an additional test does not entitle Schmidt to the remedy of suppression of the blood test results. 3 The refusal to submit to a test is, in itself, grounds for penalties under Wis. Stat. § 343.305 (9), including revocation of the person's operating privilege. 4 In addition to distinguishing S 2004By the Court. — Judgment affirmed. 1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2001-02 version unless otherwise noted. 2 Because of this conclusion, we do not address the State's argument that, even if Schmidt had made a proper request for an additional test, the officer's failure to administer an additional test does not entitle Schmidt to the remedy of suppression of the blood test results. 3 The refusal to submit to a test is, in itself, grounds for penalties under Wis. Stat. § 343.305 (9), including revocation of the person's operating privilege. 4 In addition to distinguishing S | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. McCrossen
green
2 sentences2004By the Court. — Judgment affirmed. 1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2001-02 version unless otherwise noted. 2 Because of this conclusion, we do not address the State's argument that, even if Schmidt had made a proper request for an additional test, the officer's failure to administer an additional test does not entitle Schmidt to the remedy of suppression of the blood test results. 3 The refusal to submit to a test is, in itself, grounds for penalties under Wis. Stat. § 343.305 (9), including revocation of the person's operating privilege. 4 In addition to distinguishing S 2004By the Court. — Judgment affirmed. 1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2001-02 version unless otherwise noted. 2 Because of this conclusion, we do not address the State's argument that, even if Schmidt had made a proper request for an additional test, the officer's failure to administer an additional test does not entitle Schmidt to the remedy of suppression of the blood test results. 3 The refusal to submit to a test is, in itself, grounds for penalties under Wis. Stat. § 343.305 (9), including revocation of the person's operating privilege. 4 In addition to distinguishing S | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Schmerber v. California
green
2 sentences1991Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 758-59 . [2] The Court rejected the defendant's claim that the drawing of the blood sample violated the fourth amendment. 1991Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 758-59 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
In Re Paternity of MJB
green
2 sentences1988As we held in In re the Paternity of M.J.B.: T.A.T. v. R.E.B., 144 Wis. 2d 638 , 425 N.W.2d 404 (1988), which was a paternity case and therefore a civil action, the test is credible evidence the weight of which should be argued to the factfinder. 1988As we held in In re the Paternity of M.J.B.: T.A.T. v. R.E.B., 144 Wis. 2d 638 , 425 N.W.2d 404 (1988), which was a paternity case and therefore a civil action, the test is credible evidence the weight of which should be argued to the factfinder. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.