WI Stat § 885.235 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 885 - Witnesses and oral testimony.|885.235 - Chemical tests for intoxication.

885.235  Chemical tests for intoxication. (1) In this section:(a) “Alcohol concentration" means the number of grams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of a person's blood or the number of grams of alcohol in 210 liters of a person's breath.(b) “Controlled substance" has the meaning specified in s. 961.01 (4).(bd) “Controlled substance analog" has the meaning given in s. 961.01 (4m).(c) “Drug" has the meaning specified in s. 450.01 (10).(d) “Restricted controlled substance" means any of the following:1. A controlled substance included in schedule I under ch. 961 other than a tetrahydrocannabinol.1m. The heroin metabolite 6-monoacetylmorphine. 2. A controlled substance analog, as defined in s. 961.01 (4m), of a controlled substance described in subd. 1.3. Cocaine or any of its metabolites.4. Methamphetamine.5. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, excluding its precursors or metabolites, at a concentration of one or more nanograms per milliliter of a person's blood. (1g) In any action or proceeding in which it is material to prove that a person was under the influence of an intoxicant or had a prohibited alcohol concentration or a specified alcohol concentration while operating or driving a motor vehicle or, if the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle, on duty time, while operating a motorboat, except a sailboat operating under sail alone, while operating a snowmobile, while operating an all-terrain vehicle or utility terrain vehicle or while handling a firearm, evidence of the amount of alcohol in the person's blood at the time in question, as shown by chemical analysis of a sample of the person's blood or urine or evidence of the amount of alcohol in the person's breath, is admissible on the issue of whether he or she was under the influence of an intoxicant or had a prohibited alcohol concentration or a specified alcohol concentration if the sample was taken within 3 hours after the event to be proved. The chemical analysis shall be given effect as follows without requiring any expert testimony as to its effect:(a) The fact that the analysis shows that the person had an alcohol concentration of more than 0.0 but less than 0.08 is relevant evidence on the issue of being under the combined influence of alcohol and a controlled substance, a controlled substance analog or any other drug, but, except as provided in par. (d) or sub. (1m), is not to be given any prima facie effect.(b) Except with respect to the operation of a commercial motor vehicle as provided in par. (d), the fact that the analysis shows that the person had an alcohol concentration of more than 0.04 but less than 0.08 is relevant evidence on the issue of intoxication or an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more but is not to be given any prima facie effect.(c) The fact that the analysis shows that the person had an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more is prima facie evidence that he or she was under the influence of an intoxicant and is prima facie evidence that he or she had an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.(d) The fact that the analysis shows that the person had an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more is prima facie evidence that he or she was under the influence of an intoxicant with respect to operation of a commercial motor vehicle and is prima facie evidence that he or she had an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more. (1k) In any action or proceeding in which it is material to prove that a person had a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood while operating or driving a motor vehicle or, if the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle, on duty time, while operating a motorboat, except a sailboat operating under sail alone, while operating a snowmobile, while operating an all-terrain vehicle or utility terrain vehicle, or while handling a firearm, if a chemical analysis of a sample of the person's blood shows that the person had a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood, the court shall treat the analysis as prima facie evidence on the issue of the person having a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood without requiring any expert testimony as to its effect. (1m) In any action under s. 23.33 (4c) (a) 3., 23.335 (12) (a) 3., 30.681 (1) (bn), 346.63 (2m) or (7), or 350.101 (1) (c), evidence of the amount of alcohol in the person's blood at the time in question, as shown by chemical analysis of a sample of the person's blood or urine or evidence of the amount of alcohol in the person's breath, is admissible on the issue of whether he or she had an alcohol concentration in the range specified in s. 23.33 (4c) (a) 3., 23.335 (12) (a) 3., 30.681 (1) (bn), 346.63 (2m), or 350.101 (1) (c) or an alcohol concentration above 0.0 under s. 346.63 (7) if the sample was taken within 3 hours after the event to be proved. The fact that the analysis shows that the person had an alcohol concentration of more than 0.0 but not more than 0.08 is prima facie evidence that the person had an alcohol concentration in the range specified in s. 23.33 (4c) (a) 3., 23.335 (12) (a) 3., 30.681 (1) (bn), 346.63 (2m), or 350.101 (1) (c) or an alcohol concentration above 0.0 under s. 346.63 (7). (2) The concentration of alcohol in the blood shall be taken prima facie to be three-fourths of the concentration of alcohol in the urine. (3) If the sample of breath, blood or urine was not taken within 3 hours after the event to be proved, evidence of the amount of alcohol in the person's blood or breath as shown by the chemical analysis is admissible only if expert testimony establishes its probative value and may be given prima facie effect only if the effect is established by expert testimony. (4) The provisions of this section relating to the admissibility of chemical tests for alcohol concentration or intoxication or for determining whether a person had a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood shall not be construed as limiting the introduction of any other competent evidence bearing on the question of whether or not a person was under the influence of an intoxicant, had a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood, had a specified alcohol concentration, or had an alcohol concentration in the range specified in s. 23.33 (4c) (a) 3., 23.335 (12) (a) 3., 30.681 (1) (bn), 346.63 (2m), or 350.101 (1) (c). (5) Notwithstanding sub. (4), in any action or proceeding for a violation of s. 23.33 (4c) (a) 2m. or (b) 2m., 23.335 (12) (a) 2m. or (b) 2m., 30.681 (1) (b) 1m. or (2) (b) 1m., 346.63 (1) (am) or (2) (a) 3., 350.101 (1) (bm) or (2) (bm), 940.09 (1) (am) or (cm) or (1g) (am) or (cm), 940.25 (1) (am) or (cm), or 941.20 (1) (bm), the only form of chemical analysis of a sample of human biological material that is admissible as evidence bearing on the question of whether or not the person had delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol at a concentration of one or more nanograms per milliliter of the person's blood is a chemical analysis of a sample of the person's blood.History:  1971 c. 40; 1973 c. 102; 1981 c. 20, 184; 1983 a. 74, 459; 1985 a. 146 s. 8; 1985 a. 331, 337; 1987 a. 3, 399; 1989 a. 105; 1991 a. 277; 1995 a. 436, 448; 1997 a. 35, 198; 2003 a. 30, 97; 2005 a. 8; 2011 a. 208; 2015 a. 170, 332; 2019 a. 68.A blood sample taken under s. 346.71 (2) and forwarded to the Department of Transportation is admissible in evidence. Luedtke v. Shedivy, 51 Wis. 2d 110, 186 N.W.2d 220 (1971).Administration of a blood or breath test does not violate a defendant's privilege against self-incrimination. State v. Driver, 59 Wis. 2d 35, 207 N.W.2d 850 (1973).When blood alcohol content is tested under statutory procedures, results of the test are mandatorily admissible. The physical sample tested is not evidence intended, required, or even susceptible of being produced by the state under s. 971.23 (4) and (5). State v. Ehlen, 119 Wis. 2d 451, 351 N.W.2d 503 (1984).Failure to timely notify a person of the right to an alternative blood test for intoxication does not affect the presumption of validity for a properly given blood test and is not grounds for suppressing the test results. County of Dane v. Granum, 203 Wis. 2d 252, 551 N.W.2d 859 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-3470.