Legal Opinion

State v. Bunders

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1975No. State 173PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeilfuss, J.

The defendant asserts that because she was not advised of her right to counsel her refusal to submit to the chemical test was not unreasonable.

She contends that she was entitled to be advised of her constitutional rights, including the right to counsel, before she refused to submit to the chemical test by virtue of the Miranda rule.

Sec. 343.305 (7) (c), Stats., provides that driving privileges shall be suspended only if the refusal to submit to chemical testing was unreasonable. The defendant asserts on appeal that she had a right to the presence of counsel, a right to be so informed, and…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. United States v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  4. Campbell v. Superior CourtArizona Supreme Court · 1971
  5. Blow v. Commissioner of Motor VehiclesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1969

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. State v. NeitzelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Commonwealth v. BrennanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
  3. State v. AlbrightCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1980
  4. State v. ReitterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1999
  5. In Matter of Suspension of Operating Privilege of BardwellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1978

9 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