COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION
DATED AND FILED
May 9, 2001
Cornelia G. Clark
Clerk, Court of Appeals
of Wisconsin
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound
volume of the Official Reports.
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62.
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT II
State
of Wisconsin,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Walter
Rieckhoff,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Winnebago County: WILLIAM H. CARVER, Judge. Affirmed.
¶1 SNYDER, J.[1] Walter Rieckhoff appeals from a judgment of conviction and an order denying his motion to suppress evidence of the results of a blood test. Because the issues Rieckhoff raises in this appeal were decided in the State’s favor in State v. Thorstad, 2000 WI App 199, 238 Wis. 2d 666, 618 N.W.2d 240, review denied, 239 Wis. 2d 310, 619 N.W.2d 93 (Wis. Oct. 17, 2000) (No. 99-1765-CR), we affirm the judgment of conviction and the order.
FACTS
¶2 On March 1, 1999, Rieckhoff was pulled over by Officer John
Matz of the Winnebago County Sheriff’s Department for traffic violations. After observing signs of intoxication, Matz
had Rieckhoff perform a number of field sobriety tests, all of which he
failed. After his arrest, Rieckhoff was
taken to Mercy Medical Center in Oshkosh where he was read the Informing the
Accused form and asked if he would submit to an evidentiary chemical test of
his blood. Rieckhoff consented. He was arrested and eventually charged with
operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) and having a prohibited blood
alcohol concentration (PAC), third offense.
¶3 Prior to trial, Rieckhoff moved to suppress the test results, arguing that the warrantless blood draw was in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The trial court denied this motion. Rieckhoff then entered a plea of no contest to the OWI charge, and the PAC charge was dismissed. Rieckhoff appeals the trial court’s order denying his suppression motion and his judgment of conviction.
DISCUSSION
¶4 This case presents a question of law based upon an undisputed set of facts, which we review de novo. State v. Edgeberg, 188 Wis. 2d 339, 344-45, 524 N.W.2d 911 (Ct. App. 1994).
¶5 As Rieckhoff concedes in his brief, we have recently considered and rejected the exact arguments he makes in this appeal. In Thorstad, we concluded that so long as the four requirements outlined by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in State v. Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d 529, 533-34, 494 N.W.2d 399 (1993), are met, there is no Fourth Amendment violation when the police obtain a blood sample from an OWI arrestee. Thorstad, 2000 WI App 199 at ¶17. Not only has the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied review, the United States Supreme Court recently denied certiorari review. See Thorstad v. Wisconsin, 121 S. Ct. 1099 (Feb. 20, 2001) (No. 00-1145). Thorstad is dispositive. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of conviction and the order denying the motion to suppress evidence.
By the Court.—Judgment and order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.
[1] This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 752.31(2)(c) (1999‑2000). All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 1999-2000 version unless otherwise noted.