Court Opinion

ID: 9687322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:23:43.877071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:25.752049
License: Public Domain

DIANE S. SYKES, J.
¶ 59. (concurring). I agree with the majority's rejection of the State's argument, adopted by the court of appeals, that the implied consent law requires nothing more than an oral, English language reading of the implied consent warnings, regardless of whether the drunk driving suspect can either hear or understand spoken English. The majority adopts a new test for evaluating an arresting officer's compliance with the implied consent statute, one that focuses on the reasonableness of the officer's conduct in administering the implied consent warnings. I write separately to express some concern about the practical operation of the new test.
¶ 60. As I see it, the question in this case is whether Wis. Stat. § 343.305(4)(1995-96), which requires an arresting officer to "orally inform"1 a drunk driving suspect of his rights and responsibilities under *800the implied consent law before obtaining a chemical test for intoxication, requires the officer to do so in a language the suspect understands. The circuit court said "yes." The court of appeals said "no." This court says "maybe yes, maybe no." It depends.
¶ 61. The defendant in this case has been profoundly deaf since birth and communicates in American Sign Language (ASL). He asked for a sign language interpreter at the time of his arrest for drunk driving, but none was available. The arresting officer obtained the assistance of an officer who knew some sign language, but was not fluent in ASL. The officers communicated with the defendant partially in writing and partially through sign language, and the defendant was given the written Informing the Accused form to read. The form was also read to him orally. The defendant wrote a note asking for a blood test, which registered a blood alcohol concentration of 0.206.
¶ 62. The defendant moved to suppress the test results, arguing that he should have been provided with an ASL interpretation of the implied consent warnings. The circuit court agreed, and granted the motion. The court of appeals reversed. The majority affirms the court of appeals, but on different grounds. According to the majority opinion, whether an officer has complied with the statute depends upon whether he used "reasonable methods" to "reasonably convey" the implied consent warnings to the suspect — not, apparently, whether the officer used a language the suspect could understand.
¶ 63. It is not entirely clear what this new "reasonable methods" to "reasonably convey" test requires an officer to do when confronted with a drunk driving *801suspect who does not communicate in spoken English, either because he is deaf, or because he speaks and understands a foreign language only. The majority does not read the statute to require an interpreter or a recorded translation of the warnings in this situation, as long as the officer's communication "methods" were otherwise reasonable and would "reasonably convey" the warnings.
¶ 64. I assume that an officer who merely reads the implied consent warnings out loud to a deaf person, without more, will not have complied with the statute under the "reasonable methods" to "reasonably convey" test. It seems to me that this would be considered an unreasonable method of communicating with a deaf person, or would not be considered reasonably likely to convey the warnings to one who cannot hear. Similarly, I assume that an officer who merely reads the implied consent warnings in English to a suspect who speaks only Spanish will not have complied with the statute, because this, too, would be considered unreasonable under the test.
¶ 65. These conclusions would be consistent with common sense and the rule of statutory construction that requires courts to avoid interpretations of statutes that lead to absurd or unreasonable results. Verdoljak v. Mosinee Paper Corp., 200 Wis. 2d 624, 636, 547 N.W.2d 602 (1996); State v. Williams, 198 Wis. 2d 516, 532, 544 N.W.2d 406 (1996); State v. Zielke, 137 Wis. 2d 39, 51, 403 N.W.2d 427 (1987). Indeed, this would be the only construction of the statute that "does not produce 'questionable results' and make the law look 'silly.'" Williams, 198 Wis. 2d at 532. The notion that the statute requires only an oral English language reading of the implied consent warnings to a deaf or non-English speaking suspect is manifestly unreason*802able. The legislature cannot have intended a meaningless or futile exercise such as the State's suggested construction of this statute would produce in this situation. See, 2A Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction, § 45:12, at 94 (6th ed.) ("it cannot be presumed that the legislature would do a futile thing").
¶ 66. Furthermore, "the cardinal rule in interpreting statutes is that the purpose of the whole act is to be sought and is favored over a construction which will defeat the manifest object of the act." Student Ass'n of Univ. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee v. Baum, 74 Wis. 2d 283, 294-95, 246 N.W.2d 622 (1976); see also, Caldwell v. Percy, 105 Wis. 2d 354, 361-62, 314 N.W.2d 135 (Ct. App. 1981). This statute has a dual purpose: to facilitate the collection of evidence of intoxicated driving, and to ensure that persons arrested for drunk driving are informed about their rights and obligations under the implied consent law. See majority op. at ¶¶ 17-18. The second of these purposes would be thoroughly defeated if the statute is read to entitle a deaf or non-English speaking suspect to nothing more than an oral, English language recitation of the warnings, which he has not the slightest hope of comprehending.
¶ 67. The majority correctly notes that the implied consent law is not the only means by which a law enforcement officer may lawfully obtain chemical evidence of intoxication from a drunk driving suspect. Majority op. at ¶ 34. The Fourth Amendment permits the warrantless seizure of chemical evidence of intoxication based upon probable cause and exigent circumstances. Zielke, 137 Wis. 2d at 51-52 (citing Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 766-72 (1966)). Suppression is not required as a remedy for noncompliance with the implied consent law, although the State may lose the evidentiary benefits of automatic admissi*803bility and the presumption of intoxication specified in Wis. Stat. §§ 343.305(5)(d) and 885.235. Id.
¶ 68. Accordingly, I concur in and join the majority's decision to affirm,2 with the foregoing observations about the practical application of the court's new test for compliance with the implied consent statute in the case of deaf and non-English speaking suspects.

 The current statute says the officer "shall read" the implied consent warnings to the suspect. Wis. Stat. § 343.305(4) (1998 — 99). The majority opinion concludes that this change in *800language makes no substantive difference in the interpretation of the statute, majority op. at nn.15-16, and I agree.

 In particular, I agree with the majority's reiteration that there is no "subjective confusion" defense to the admissibility of a chemical test obtained under the implied consent law, as well as its treatment of the defendant's due process, equal protection, Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act arguments.