A recent appellate court decision addresses whether a state law requiring drivers to submit to chemical testing for intoxication violates constitutional protections against unreasonable searches. The case arose when an individual refused a blood draw requested by law enforcement during a traffic stop, resulting in the revocation of his operating privileges. This legal dispute is significant because it tests the boundaries between public safety measures and individual constitutional rights.
On April 21, 2026, Layne Perry Stenberg filed an appeal with the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District II, challenging an order from Trempealeau County Circuit Court that found he unreasonably refused to consent to a blood draw as required by Wisconsin Statute § 343.305(9)(a). The defendant-appellant named in the filing is Layne Perry Stenberg, with Trempealeau County listed as plaintiff-respondent.
According to court documents, on July 9, 2022, at approximately 10:20 p.m., a sheriff’s deputy observed a vehicle operating without illuminated tail lamps and crossing the center line on County Road C. After initiating a traffic stop, Deputy Osmani Cruz noted signs suggesting possible intoxication by the driver—later identified as Stenberg—including slurred speech, glassy eyes, and an odor of intoxicants. Field sobriety tests indicated impairment; Stenberg registered a preliminary breath test result of 0.109. A subsequent search uncovered open bottles of rum in his vehicle.
After being taken into custody, Stenberg was read the Informing the Accused form which stated that operation of a motor vehicle on Wisconsin roadways constitutes implied consent to chemical testing for alcohol or drugs. Stenberg refused to submit to an evidentiary blood test. Deputy Cruz then applied for and obtained a search warrant; hospital staff drew Stenberg’s blood pursuant to this warrant, which revealed an alcohol concentration above legal limits.
Stenberg was charged with operating while intoxicated (OWI) and with prohibited alcohol concentration (PAC), both as third offenses under Wisconsin statutes. He also received a citation for refusing chemical testing after arrest. In response, Stenberg requested a refusal hearing and filed motions arguing that § 343.305 was unconstitutional both facially and as applied to him because it allegedly forced individuals to relinquish their Fourth Amendment rights in exchange for driving privileges.
The circuit court initially denied Stenberg’s motion declaring § 343.305 facially unconstitutional but granted his claim that it was unconstitutional as applied to him due to what it viewed as disproportionate civil penalties compared to those imposed upon conviction for drunk driving alone. As a result, the court dismissed his refusal citation but did not dismiss the PAC charge.
The State subsequently moved for reconsideration, citing precedent affirming that implied consent laws imposing only civil penalties—such as license revocation—do not violate constitutional protections so long as criminal penalties are not involved. Upon review, the circuit court reversed its earlier ruling regarding unconstitutionality as applied and upheld § 343.305(2), ordering revocation of Stenberg’s license for one year along with requirements for alcohol assessment and installation of an ignition interlock device.
In his appeal before the Court of Appeals, Stenberg argued that Wisconsin’s implied consent law violated both the unconstitutional conditions doctrine—which prohibits conditioning government benefits on surrendering constitutional rights—and failed what he described as the ‘least intrusive means’ test under Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.
The appellate panel rejected these arguments based on binding state and federal case law including State v. Forrett (2022) and Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016). The opinion states: “Binding case law is clear that ‘[t]here is no constitutional issue’ with an implied consent statute that ‘imposes only ‘civil penalties,’ such as revoking a person’s operating privileges, for refusing a warrantless blood draw.’”
The court further explained that under current practice if drivers refuse chemical testing they face only civil—not criminal—penalties unless police obtain judicial warrants before collecting evidence by more intrusive means such as blood draws: “A person given the choice… never sacrifices his or her right to be free from an unreasonable search or seizure.”
Addressing claims about less intrusive alternatives like breath or urine tests or mandatory warrants prior to any evidence collection attempt, judges cited previous decisions holding that neither federal nor state constitutions require authorities to offer such options instead of blood tests when investigating suspected impaired driving.
Ultimately, the Court concluded: “Stenberg has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Wisconsin’s implied consent statute is unconstitutional—either facially or as applied… Order affirmed.”
Attorneys’ names were not specified in this document; Judge Rian W. Radtke presided over proceedings at circuit level; appellate judges included Stark (presiding judge), Hruz (authoring judge), and Gill; Case ID is 2024AP281.
Source: 2024AP0281_County_of_Trempealeau_v_Stenberg_Opinion_Wisconsin_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
