Motion to Suppress - McNeely

STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT ____COUNTY

HONORABLE _________________BRANCH _____

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: __________

MR. CLIENT,

Defendant.

MOTION TO SUPPRESS

NOW COMES, Mr. Client, by his attorney__________, appearing specially and reserving the right to challenge the jurisdiction of this Court, and hereby moves this Court for an Order, pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and consonant Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution, suppressing all physical evidence and statements obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure. In support thereof, Mr. Client states the following:

1. A criminal complaint was filed, charging Mr. Client with one count of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant. Mr. Client was found in the driver’s seat of his vehicle sleeping. Police woke him up and he had slurred speech and was extremely drowsy. Police allege that he failed several sobriety tests, and he was taken to the hospital for a blood draw. While there, officers had hospital personnel forcibly draw a sample of Mr. Client’s blood without his consent or a warrant.

2. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. IV Amend. A warrantless search is presumptively unreasonable, and it is the State’s burden to demonstrate that it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement. Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1558 (2013). “Such an invasion of bodily integrity implicates an individual’s ‘most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy.’” Id. The United States Supreme Court further noted, “[t]o determine whether a law enforcement officer faced an emergency that justified acting without a warrant, this Court looks to the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 1559. Applying the totality of the circumstances approach is a “fact specific” inquiry that “demands that we evaluate each case of alleged exigency based ‘on its own facts and circumstances.’” Id.

3. Exigent circumstances were not present in this case to justify a warrantless blood draw. While Mr...