The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 Presidents Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 Presidents Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Trial Academy Master Class 6.0
    • The Business Of Law
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules The Destruction of Blood Samples Not Unconstitutional

Posted on June 5, 2015 by Larry Bodine

shutterstock_222605269The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled there was no violation of two defendants due process rights when blood samples were destroyed, depriving the defendants of the opportunity to test their samples independently.

The court consolidated two cases raising the same constitutional issue. In State v. Luedtke, Michael R. Luedtke was charged with a operating a motor vehicle under the influence of a controlled substance.

Luedtke’s blood sample showed a detectable amount of cocaine, diazepam and methadone. Luedtke argued his blood sample was destroyed, according to the state labs routine procedure, before he had an opportunity to test it.

In State v. Weissinger, Jessica Weissinger was also charged with the same offense as Luedtke, along with one count of injury by use of a motor vehicle. Weissinger’s sample showed amounts of marijuana, oxycodone, and an anti-depressant.

She argued the admission of the blood test results, as evidence was unconstitutional because the sample was destroyed before she had an opportunity to test it.

Incidents Leading to Blood Samples

Also see:

AZ Supreme Court Rules Marijuana Traces in Bloodstream Not Enough for DUI

Luedtke was arrested during a routine stop after the officer noticed fresh puncture wounds on Luedtke’s right hand. Luedtke also failed a field sobriety test. Weissinger’s vehicle crashed into a motorcycle, causing the motorcyclist to sustain multiple injuries including a broken back and shattered wrist.

She consented to a blood sample, even though she had not been placed under arrest or charged with any offenses at the time. In both cases, the samples were tested for alcohol first, then drugs by different laboratories.

Both reports stated that samples would be retained no longer than six months unless an agency or person requested otherwise. Although copies of both test were mailed, Luedtke and Weissinger claimed they did not receive the reports.

No Due Process Rights Violated

In both cases on appeal, the court affirmed the lower court’s decision, stating there was not a violation of due process rights when the lab destroyed the samples.

The state supreme court stated in order for either defendant to prevail, Luedtke and Weissinger had to prove the State:

  1. Failed to preserve evidence that was apparently exculpatory, or
  2. Acted in bad faith by failing to preserve evidence that was potentially exculpatory. Arizona v. Youngblood, 48 U.S. 51 (1988).

 

Justice Michael Gableman stated “Luedtke and Weissinger’s blood samples were neither apparently exculpatory nor destroyed in bad faith; therefore, the State did not violate their due process rights.”

The majority following Youngblood, stated the “Wisconsin Constitution does not provide any greater due process protections that afforded to persons under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.”

The majority believed without more, the routine destruction of a driver’s blood or breath sample does not deprive a person of due process rights. Intentional destruction without more does not establish bad faith.

Both defendants received a fair trial. Each defendant was given an opportunity to present expert testimony. Although, the defendants could not retest the actual blood samples, there was access to the raw data used by the lab to test the samples.

For Weissinger, although her sample was destroyed before she was officially charged, the lab was under no obligation to preserve the sample any longer than its policy.

Strict Liability Offense

The court also addressed whether operating a motor vehicle with a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance is a strict liability offense under Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1).

 Luedtke argued the statute was unconstitutional because it did not require the state to prove scienter. Luedtke believed the state was required to show he actually ingested the substances exposed through the test results.

To determine whether a statute imposes strict liability the court looked to six factors.

  • The language of the statute;
  • The language of the related statutes;
  • Legislative history;
  • Law enforcement practicality;
  • Protection of the public from harm; and
  • The severity of punishment.

 

The court did not find the statute to be unconstitutional, because it satisfies the government’s objective to keep the public safe. Additionally stating, the zero-tolerance approach is the best way to combat drugged driving.

This case is State v. Luedtke, State v. Weissinger Case No. 2013AP1737-CR & 2013AP218-CR Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Posted in Blog, Criminal Law / DUI

Comments are closed.

News Categories

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

Defrauded College Students Will Have $6 Billion Forgiven in a New Settlement

Defrauded College Students Will Have $6 Billion Forgiven in a New Settlement

The Biden administration has agreed to cancel $6 billion in student loans for about 200,000 former students who say they were[Read More...]
An Iowa City Settles Lawsuit Over a Deadly Police Shooting For $5 Million

An Iowa City Settles Lawsuit Over a Deadly Police Shooting For $5 Million

Burlington, Iowa, has agreed to pay $5 million to settle a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the mother of a man who was shot[Read More...]
Co-Owners File a $695 Million Lawsuit Against Georgia Power Over a Contract Dispute

Co-Owners File a $695 Million Lawsuit Against Georgia Power Over a Contract Dispute

The owners of a majority share of a nuclear power plant being expanded in Georgia are suing lead owner Georgia Power Co., cla[Read More...]
A Tesla Worker Rejects a $15 Million Race Bias Settlement

A Tesla Worker Rejects a $15 Million Race Bias Settlement

A Black former elevator operator at Tesla Inc's flagship California assembly plant on Tuesday rejected a $15 million award in[Read More...]
Juneteenth Freedom Day

Juneteenth Freedom Day

History Prior to Juneteenth African tribe members were kidnapped, sold into slavery in the American colonies, and exp[Read More...]

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.