State v. David W. Howes

¶ 89.

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.

{dissenting). Only one question of law has been at issue in the instant case since its inception: Whether provisions *520of Wisconsin's implied consent law authorizing war-rantless blood draws from unconscious drivers, Wis. Stat. §§ 343.305(3)(ar) and (b), are constitutional. These statutory provisions appear in Attachment l.1

¶ 90. The constitutional inquiry into the statute's unconscious driver provisions focuses on whether statutory implied consent to a blood draw, a significant search of the person, satisfies the "consent" exception to the Fourth Amendment. This…