State v. Randy L. Barreau
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED November 22, 2000 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 and RULE 809.62. No. 99-3086-CR STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT IV STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, V. RANDY L. BARREAU, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Sauk County: JAMES EVENSON, Judge. Affirmed. ¶1 LUNDSTEN, J.1 Randy L. Barreau appeals from a judgment of conviction. He complained in his appellate brief that the circuit court erroneously denied his pretrial motions to suppress the results of a blood test taken during the 1 This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(c) (1997-98). All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 1997-98 version unless otherwise noted. No. 99-3086-CR course of his arrest for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. He still maintains that the trial court erred, but now concedes that his argument must be rejected by this court because of State v. Thorstad, 2000 WI App 199, No. 991765-CR. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. ¶2 Barreau was arrested and taken to a hospital where he submitted to the taking of a blood sample. The arresting officer informed Barreau that he was required to provide a blood sample pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 343.305(2). In requesting the test, the officer read to Barreau the standard Informing the Accused form provided by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. Barreau submitted to the test without objection. Barreau contends that the blood draw constituted an illegal seizure. ¶3 In State v. Thorstad, 2000 WI App 199, No. 99-1765-CR, we engaged in an analysis of the same issue raised in this case. We held that the analysis set forth in State v. Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d 529, 494 N.W.2d 399 (1993), determines whether warrantless blood tests used to detect evidence of intoxication in motorists are constitutionally permissible. See Thorstad, 2000 WI App 199 at ¶11. Bohling holds that a warrantless blood draw is permissible when the following four requirements are met: (1) the blood draw is taken to obtain evidence of intoxication from a person lawfully arrested for a drunkdriving related violation or crime, (2) there is a clear indication that the blood draw will produce evidence of intoxication, (3) the method used to take the blood sample is a reasonable one and performed in a reasonable manner, and (4) the arrestee presents no reasonable objection to the blood draw. Thorstad, 2000 WI App 199 at ¶7, quoting Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d at 533-34 (footnote omitted). 2 No. 99-3086-CR ¶4 Barreau concedes that Thorstad controls this case because there are no factual differences that would make this case distinguishable from Thorstad. The record shows that Barreau s concession is appropriate. ¶5 In this case, as in Thorstad, the blood draw was taken to obtain evidence of intoxication during the course of a lawful arrest under circumstances in which the defendant was suspected of a drunk-driving related offense; the blood draw was conducted at a hospital with no objection from the appellant; and there is no argument that the method used to take blood is unreasonable. In keeping with Thorstad, Barreau does not contend that the arresting officer failed to provide the consent information mandated by WIS. STAT. § 345.305. ¶6 Therefore, the trial court s decision to deny Barreau s request to suppress the blood test results was proper. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. By the Court. Judgment affirmed. This opinion will not be published. 809.23(1)(b)4. 3 See WIS. STAT. RULE
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
