Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 885.235 (2026)
Chemical tests for intoxication
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
885.235(1)(a)(a) “Alcohol concentration” means the number of grams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of a person’s blood or the number of grams of alcohol in 210 liters of a person’s breath.
885.235(1)(d)1.1. A controlled substance included in schedule I under ch. 961 other than a tetrahydrocannabinol.
885.235(1)(d)2.2. A controlled substance analog, as defined in s. 961.01 (4m), of a controlled substance described in subd. 1.
885.235(1)(d)5.5. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, excluding its precursors or metabolites, at a concentration of one or more nanograms per milliliter of a person’s blood.
885.235(1g)(1g) In any action or proceeding in which it is material to prove that a person was under the influence of an intoxicant or had a prohibited alcohol concentration or a specified alcohol concentration while operating or driving a motor vehicle or, if the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle, on duty time, while operating a motorboat, except a sailboat operating under sail alone, while operating a snowmobile, while operating an all-terrain vehicle or utility terrain vehicle or while handling a firearm, evidence of the amount of alcohol in the person’s blood at the time in question, as shown by chemical analysis of a sample of the person’s blood or urine or evidence of the amount of alcohol in the person’s breath, is admissible on the issue of whether he or she was under the influence of an intoxicant or had a prohibited alcohol concentration or a specified alcohol concentration if the sample was taken within 3 hours after the event to be proved. The chemical analysis shall be given effect as follows without requiring any expert testimony as to its effect:
885.235(1g)(a)(a) The fact that the analysis shows that the person had an alcohol concentration of more than 0.0 but less than 0.08 is relevant evidence on the issue of being under the combined influence of alcohol and a controlled substance, a controlled substance analog or any other drug, but, except as provided in par. (d) or sub. (1m), is not to be given any prima facie effect.
885.235(1g)(b)(b) Except with respect to the operation of a commercial motor vehicle as provided in par. (d), the fact that the analysis shows that the person had an alcohol concentration of more than 0.04 but less than 0.08 is relevant evidence on the issue of intoxication or an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more but is not to be given any prima facie effect.
885.235(1g)(c)(c) The fact that the analysis shows that the person had an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more is prima facie evidence that he or she was under the influence of an intoxicant and is prima facie evidence that he or she had an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.
885.235(1g)(d)(d) The fact that the analysis shows that the person had an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more is prima facie evidence that he or she was under the influence of an intoxicant with respect to operation of a commercial motor vehicle and is prima facie evidence that he or she had an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more.
885.235(1k)(1k) In any action or proceeding in which it is material to prove that a person had a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood while operating or driving a motor vehicle or, if the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle, on duty time, while operating a motorboat, except a sailboat operating under sail alone, while operating a snowmobile, while operating an all-terrain vehicle or utility terrain vehicle, or while handling a firearm, if a chemical analysis of a sample of the person’s blood shows that the person had a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood, the court shall treat the analysis as prima facie evidence on the issue of the person having a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood without requiring any expert testimony as to its effect.
885.235(1m)(1m) In any action under s. 23.33 (4c) (a) 3., 23.335 (12) (a) 3., 30.681 (1) (bn), 346.63 (2m) or (7), or 350.101 (1) (c), evidence of the amount of alcohol in the person’s blood at the time in question, as shown by chemical analysis of a sample of the person’s blood or urine or evidence of the amount of alcohol in the person’s breath, is admissible on the issue of whether he or she had an alcohol concentration in the range specified in s. 23.33 (4c) (a) 3., 23.335 (12) (a) 3., 30.681 (1) (bn), 346.63 (2m), or 350.101 (1) (c) or an alcohol concentration above 0.0 under s. 346.63 (7) if the sample was taken within 3 hours after the event to be proved. The fact that the analysis shows that the person had an alcohol concentration of more than 0.0 but not more than 0.08 is prima facie evidence that the person had an alcohol concentration in the range specified in s. 23.33 (4c) (a) 3., 23.335 (12) (a) 3., 30.681 (1) (bn), 346.63 (2m), or 350.101 (1) (c) or an alcohol concentration above 0.0 under s. 346.63 (7).
885.235(2)(2) The concentration of alcohol in the blood shall be taken prima facie to be three-fourths of the concentration of alcohol in the urine.
885.235(3)(3) If the sample of breath, blood or urine was not taken within 3 hours after the event to be proved, evidence of the amount of alcohol in the person’s blood or breath as shown by the chemical analysis is admissible only if expert testimony establishes its probative value and may be given prima facie effect only if the effect is established by expert testimony.
885.235(4)(4) The provisions of this section relating to the admissibility of chemical tests for alcohol concentration or intoxication or for determining whether a person had a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood shall not be construed as limiting the introduction of any other competent evidence bearing on the question of whether or not a person was under the influence of an intoxicant, had a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood, had a specified alcohol concentration, or had an alcohol concentration in the range specified in s. 23.33 (4c) (a) 3., 23.335 (12) (a) 3., 30.681 (1) (bn), 346.63 (2m), or 350.101 (1) (c).
885.235(5)(5) Notwithstanding sub. (4), in any action or proceeding for a violation of s. 23.33 (4c) (a) 2m. or (b) 2m., 23.335 (12) (a) 2m. or (b) 2m., 30.681 (1) (b) 1m. or (2) (b) 1m., 346.63 (1) (am) or (2) (a) 3., 350.101 (1) (bm) or (2) (bm), 940.09 (1) (am) or (cm) or (1g) (am) or (cm), 940.25 (1) (am) or (cm), or 941.20 (1) (bm), the only form of chemical analysis of a sample of human biological material that is admissible as evidence bearing on the question of whether or not the person had delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol at a concentration of one or more nanograms per milliliter of the person’s blood is a chemical analysis of a sample of the person’s blood.
885.235 HistoryHistory: 1971 c. 40; 1973 c. 102; 1981 c. 20, 184; 1983 a. 74, 459; 1985 a. 146 s. 8; 1985 a. 331, 337; 1987 a. 3, 399; 1989 a. 105; 1991 a. 277; 1995 a. 436, 448; 1997 a. 35, 198; 2003 a. 30, 97; 2005 a. 8; 2011 a. 208; 2015 a. 170, 332; 2019 a. 68.
885.235 AnnotationA blood sample taken under s. 346.71 (2) and forwarded to the Department of Transportation is admissible in evidence. Luedtke v. Shedivy, 51 Wis. 2d 110, 186 N.W.2d 220 (1971).
885.235 AnnotationAdministration of a blood or breath test does not violate a defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination. State v. Driver, 59 Wis. 2d 35, 207 N.W.2d 850 (1973).
885.235 AnnotationWhen blood alcohol content is tested under statutory procedures, results of the test are mandatorily admissible. The physical sample tested is not evidence intended, required, or even susceptible of being produced by the state under s. 971.23 (4) and (5). State v. Ehlen, 119 Wis. 2d 451, 351 N.W.2d 503 (1984).
885.235 AnnotationFailure to timely notify a person of the right to an alternative blood test for intoxication does not affect the presumption of validity for a properly given blood test and is not grounds for suppressing the test results. County of Dane v. Granum, 203 Wis. 2d 252, 551 N.W.2d 859 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-3470.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 77
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: State v. Krajewski, 2002 WI 97 (Wis. 2002).
State v. Krajewski, 2002 WI 97 (Wis. 2002). “See Wis. Stat. § 885.235 (1g)(cd). After the blood draw, Krajewski was taken to the Jefferson County Jail.”
State v. Faust, 2004 WI 99 (Wis. 2004). “Wis. Stat. § 885.235 (1g)(cd). ¶ 6. Officer Olsen then requested that Faust provide a blood sample.”
State v. Patrick H. Dalton, 914 N.W.2d 120 (Wis. 2018). “Wis. Stat. § 885.235 (1g). Such events gave rise to a reasonable belief that a delay in procuring a warrant would risk the destruction of evidence.”
State v. Fonte, 2005 WI 77 (Wis. 2005). “The State argues that the jury instruction properly explained the law regarding chemical tests for intoxication under Wis. Stat. § 885.235 . 5 We agree and therefore conclude that the instruction did not deprive Fonte of his right to due process of law.”
State v. Piddington, 2001 WI 24 (Wis. 2001). “2d 399 (1993); see also Wis. Stat. § 885.235 (blood test result is automatically admissible if blood is taken within three (3) hours of the stop).”
State v. Fischer, 2010 WI 6 (Wis. 2010). “" Wis. Stat. § 885.235 (1)(a). [12] Wisconsin Stat.”
State v. McManus, 447 N.W.2d 654 (Wis. 1989). “Pangman additionally argues the partition ratio evi-dencé is relevant to rebut the statutory presumption set forth in sec. 885.235(1)(c), Stats., that "0.1 grams or more of alcohol in 210 liters of the person's breath is prima facie evidence that he or she was under the…”
State v. Michael R. Tullberg, 2014 WI 134 (Wis. 2014). “6 Tullberg did not object to the blood draw. However, the State does not argue that Tullberg consented to it.”
State v. Disch, 351 N.W.2d 492 (Wis. 1984). “Sec. 885.235(1), Stats. Whether the result is to be given credence by a finder of fact is dependent upon the exercise of a whole panoply of due process safeguards that protect a defendant's right to a fair trial, whether or not at a particular time a sample of blood is…”
State v. Giese, 2014 WI App 92 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014). “Giese first noted that because the blood was drawn more than three hours after the time when Giese said the crash happened, the result was not automatically admissible under Wis. Stat. § 885.235 but must be supported with expert testimony establishing its probative value.”
State v. Weissinger, 2014 WI App 73 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014). “Admissibility Under Wis. Stat. § 885.235 ¶ 17. The Disch court also noted that blood test results for alcohol were statutorily admissible per se under Wis.”
State v. McCrossen, 385 N.W.2d 161 (Wis. 1986). “The defendant maintains that an alternative test might have established prima facie evidence under sec. 885.235, Stats., 2 that she was not *286 under the influence of an intoxicant.”
— Wis. Stat. § 885.235(1) — 16 cases
State v. Disch, 351 N.W.2d 492 (Wis. 1984). “Sec. 885.235(1), Stats. Whether the result is to be given credence by a finder of fact is dependent upon the exercise of a whole panoply of due process safeguards that protect a defendant's right to a fair trial, whether or not at a particular time a sample of blood is…”
State v. Rydeski, 571 N.W.2d 417 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997).
Staples v. Glienke, 416 N.W.2d 920 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).
State v. Neitzel, 289 N.W.2d 828 (Wis. 1980).
City of New Berlin v. Wertz, 314 N.W.2d 911 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981).
— Wis. Stat. § 885.235(1)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Krajewski, 2002 WI 97 (Wis. 2002). “See Wis. Stat. § 885.235 (1g)(cd). After the blood draw, Krajewski was taken to the Jefferson County Jail.”
Mark B. Pattinson v. Richard H. Ubersox (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wis. Stat. § 885.235(1)(c) — 4 cases
State v. McManus, 447 N.W.2d 654 (Wis. 1989). “Pangman additionally argues the partition ratio evi-dencé is relevant to rebut the statutory presumption set forth in sec. 885.235(1)(c), Stats., that "0.1 grams or more of alcohol in 210 liters of the person's breath is prima facie evidence that he or she was under the…”
State v. Seibel, 471 N.W.2d 226 (Wis. 1991).
State v. Burkman, 292 N.W.2d 641 (Wis. 1980).
State v. Draize, 276 N.W.2d 784 (Wis. 1979).
— Wis. Stat. § 885.235(1g) — 12 cases
State v. Yancy Kevin Dieter, 2020 WI App 49 (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Cassius A. Foster, 2014 WI 131 (Wis. 2014).
State v. Luis M. Rocha-Mayo, 2014 WI 57 (Wis. 2014).
Langlade Cnty. v. Travis Lee Lettau (Wis. Ct. App. 2019).
Mark B. Pattinson v. Richard H. Ubersox (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wis. Stat. § 885.235(1g)(c) — 5 cases
State v. Faust, 2003 WI App 243 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Luis M. Rocha-Mayo, 2014 WI 57 (Wis. 2014).
Mark B. Pattinson v. Richard H. Ubersox (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Eric Trygve Kothbauer (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Danial Christopher Wheaton (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wis. Stat. § 885.235(1g)(cd) — 1 case
State v. Faust, 2003 WI App 243 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003).
— Wis. Stat. § 885.235(2a) — 2 cases
State v. McManus, 447 N.W.2d 654 (Wis. 1989). “Pangman additionally argues the partition ratio evi-dencé is relevant to rebut the statutory presumption set forth in sec. 885.235(1)(c), Stats., that "0.1 grams or more of alcohol in 210 liters of the person's breath is prima facie evidence that he or she was under the…”
State v. Walstad, 351 N.W.2d 469 (Wis. 1984).
— Wis. Stat. § 885.235(3) — 9 cases
State v. Patrick H. Dalton, 914 N.W.2d 120 (Wis. 2018). “Wis. Stat. § 885.235 (1g). Such events gave rise to a reasonable belief that a delay in procuring a warrant would risk the destruction of evidence.”
State v. Welsh, 321 N.W.2d 245 (Wis. 1982).
State v. Krause, 484 N.W.2d 347 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).
State v. Bentley, 286 N.W.2d 153 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979).
State v. Peotter, 321 N.W.2d 265 (Wis. 1982).
— Wis. Stat. § 885.235(4) — 3 cases
State v. Bohacheff, 338 N.W.2d 466 (Wis. 1983).
State v. Grade, 477 N.W.2d 315 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991).
Columbia Cnty. v. Carter Ray Smits (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wis. Stat. § 885.235(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. McCrossen, 385 N.W.2d 161 (Wis. 1986). “The defendant maintains that an alternative test might have established prima facie evidence under sec. 885.235, Stats., 2 that she was not *286 under the influence of an intoxicant.”
— Wis. Stat. § 885.235(l)(c) — 2 cases
State v. McManus, 447 N.W.2d 654 (Wis. 1989). “Pangman additionally argues the partition ratio evi-dencé is relevant to rebut the statutory presumption set forth in sec. 885.235(1)(c), Stats., that "0.1 grams or more of alcohol in 210 liters of the person's breath is prima facie evidence that he or she was under the…”
Cnty. of Dane v. Sharpee, 453 N.W.2d 508 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990).
— Wis. Stat. § 885.235(lg) — 2 cases
State v. Fonte, 2005 WI 77 (Wis. 2005). “The State argues that the jury instruction properly explained the law regarding chemical tests for intoxication under Wis. Stat. § 885.235 . 5 We agree and therefore conclude that the instruction did not deprive Fonte of his right to due process of law.”
State v. Cassius A. Foster, 2014 WI 131 (Wis. 2014).
— Wis. Stat. § 885.235(lg)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Fonte, 2005 WI 77 (Wis. 2005). “The State argues that the jury instruction properly explained the law regarding chemical tests for intoxication under Wis. Stat. § 885.235 . 5 We agree and therefore conclude that the instruction did not deprive Fonte of his right to due process of law.”
State v. Raddeman, 2000 WI App 190 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.