News

1. Was the blood draw justified under Mitchell v. Wisconsin, which established that for the category of cases involving suspected drunk drivers who are unconscious and taken to the hospital before a breath test can be administered, a warrantless blood draw is almost always justified by exigent circumstances?
2. Was the blood draw from Prado justified by her consent under the implied consent law?
3. Was suppression of the blood test results improper because the police officer who ordered the blood draw relied in good faith on the unconscious driver provision in Wisconsin’s implied consent law?

1. Whether the “good faith” exception to the warrant requirement should be extended to an officer’s reliance on law which is not “well established.”
2. Whether the “good faith” exception to the warrant requirement should be extended to officers who are not “well trained” in the matter they supposed exercised “good faith” in.
3. Whether a circuit court’s determination that an officer did not act in good faith is a question of fact, law, or both, and what standard of review ought to apply to such determinations, is an issue of first impression requiring a decision from this court.
   
   

2020AP1634-CQ DNC v. Bostelmann 
Supreme Court case type:  Certified Question
Court of Appeals:  U.S. 7th Circuit
Long caption:  Democratic National Committee, Democratic Party of Wisconsin, Sylvia Gear, Chrystal Edwards and Jill Swenson, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Marge Bostelmann, Julie M. Glancey, Dean Knudson, Mark L. Thomsen and Robert Spindell, Jr., Defendants, Republican Party of Wisconsin, Republican National Committee and Wisconsin State Legislature, Intervening Defendants-Appellants.