Court Opinion

ID: 9594535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:31:03.717614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:29:51.564155
License: Public Domain

FINE, J.
¶ 26. (concurring). I join in the Majority Opinion, and offer the following brief comments.
¶ 27. The legislature's command that a person suspected of drunk driving must take the blood-alcohol test sought by law enforcement would be hollow unless there was a mechanism to administer the test on someone who did not cooperate. Absent such a mechanism, drunk drivers could, by the mere expedient of accepting the statutory consequences of a "refusal," avoid a test that provides irrefutable proof of whether they are drunk. To permit drivers to so easily skirt the requirement that they submit to a test chosen by law *427enforcement would, in my view, to use the word Judge Schudson uses in his concurrence, be an "absurd" reading of the statutes designed to rid our highways of drunk drivers. Thus, I believe that the Majority reads correctly our decision in State v. Gibson, 2001 WI App 71, 242 Wis. 2d 267, 626 N.W.2d 73, and appropriately applies it to this case.