Introduction

In State of Wisconsin v. Dawn M. Prado (2021 WI 64), the Wisconsin Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of the state's incapacitated driver provision within the implied consent statute, Wis. Stat. § 343.305. The case arose after Dawn Prado was involved in a severe vehicular accident that resulted in fatalities and injuries. Following the incident, Prado was found unconscious with a high blood alcohol concentration (BAC) and later sought to suppress the blood test evidence, arguing that the incapacitated driver provision violated her Fourth Amendment rights. Both the State of Wisconsin and Prado sought further review of the Court of Appeals' decision, leading the Supreme Court to deliver its opinion.

Summary of the Judgment

The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the incapacitated driver provision is unconstitutional as it authorizes warrantless searches without fitting within any recognized Fourth Amendment exceptions. However, the Court also found that the blood draw conducted by law enforcement was performed in good faith reliance on the statute, which had not yet been declared unconstitutional at the time of the search. Consequently, under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, the blood test evidence against Prado was deemed admissible.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key cases that shaped the Court's reasoning:

• Missouri v. McNeely (569 U.S. 141, 2013): Established that the natural metabolism of alcohol does not automatically create exigent circumstances warranting a warrantless blood draw in drunk-driving cases. Each case's totality of circumstances must be considered.
• Birchfield v. North Dakota (579 U.S. ___, 2016): Distinguished between breath and blood tests, ruling that while breath tests are permissible without a warrant, blood tests are more intrusive and generally require a warrant unless exigent circumstances exist.
• Mitchell v. Wisconsin (588 U.S. ___, 2019): A plurality opinion held that blood draws from unconscious drivers often fall under exigent circumstances, thus permitting warrantless searches, but did not categorically resolve the constitutionality of statutory provisions like the incapacitated driver provision.
• ILLINOIS v. KRULL (480 U.S. 340, 1987): Affirmed the good faith exception, allowing evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a statute to be admitted even if the statute is later found unconstitutional.
• STATE v. WINTLEND (2002 WI App 314, 258 Wis. 2d 875): Previously upheld implied consent through driver's license application, a stance overruled by the current decision.

Legal Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the incapacitated driver provision's reliance on "deemed" consent lacks the specificity and unequivocalness required under the Fourth Amendment, which mandates "actual" consent for searches without a warrant. By conflating consent with exigent circumstances, the statute fails to meet constitutional standards. The Court emphasized that consent and exigent circumstances are distinct exceptions and that the statute does not inherently satisfy the criteria for warrantless searches.

Furthermore, while the provision was deemed unconstitutional, the good faith exception applied because law enforcement reasonably relied on the statute's validity at the time of the blood draw. This adherence to precedent ensures that officers are not penalized for acting within the bounds of existing laws, even if those laws are later invalidated.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for both constitutional law and law enforcement practices in Wisconsin:

• Constitutional Clarification: The decision clarifies that statutory provisions cannot independently create warrantless search exceptions if they do not align with established Fourth Amendment principles.
• Exclusionary Rule: Upholding the good faith exception maintains a balance between deterring police misconduct and preventing the suppression of evidence obtained by reasonably relying officers.
• Future Litigation: The ruling overrules previous decisions like STATE v. WINTLEND, setting a new standard for evaluating implied consent statutes and their compatibility with constitutional protections.
• Law Enforcement Procedures: Police officers must now ensure that warrantless blood draws are justified under recognized exceptions beyond statutory "deemed" consent, necessitating a more nuanced approach in incapacitated driver situations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Implied Consent

Implied consent refers to situations where, by engaging in certain activities (like driving), individuals are considered to have consented to certain types of police testing (e.g., breathalyzers). However, this case highlights the limitations when consent is not actively given, such as when a driver is incapacitated.

Good Faith Exception

The good faith exception allows evidence obtained from a search or seizure that violates the Fourth Amendment to be admitted in court if the law enforcement officers were acting in reasonable reliance on a statute or precedent that later is found unconstitutional. This prevents the exclusion of evidence that was obtained without malicious intent or gross negligence.

Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, a warrant is required for searches, but exceptions exist, such as consent or exigent circumstances.

Conclusion

The Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in State of Wisconsin v. Dawn M. Prado marks a significant reaffirmation of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. By declaring the incapacitated driver provision unconstitutional, the Court underscored the necessity for explicit and actual consent in statutory exceptions to the warrant requirement. However, the affirmation of the good faith exception ensures that law enforcement actions taken in reasonable reliance on existing statutes remain effective, preventing the jeopardization of evidence in trials. This balance preserves constitutional rights while maintaining the integrity of law enforcement practices.