Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Weissinger

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Decided June 25, 2014No. 2013AP218-CRPublished

1ConcurrenceBrown, C.J.

¶ 22. (concurring). I certainly understand where the dissent is coming from. The defendant, Weissinger, was not initially arrested following a bad accident. She voluntarily had her blood tested and she heard nothing for months. During that time, the blood first was tested for alcohol and came back negative. Three weeks later, in August 2009, the blood was screened for drugs and came back positive for THC. The State did nothing with this result at that time. In September and October 2009, and then in January 2010, additional drug screenings were run to detect and measure levels of various…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Arizona v. YoungbloodSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Illinois v. FisherSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  3. State of Tennessee v. Angela M. MerrimanTennessee Supreme Court · 2013
  4. Thorne v. Department of Public SafetyAlaska Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Commonwealth v. HendersonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API