A recent appellate decision confirms that evidence from a warrantless blood draw can be used in court when a driver consents after being informed of their rights, addressing concerns about constitutional protections for individuals accused of operating while intoxicated. The ruling matters because it clarifies how Wisconsin’s Implied Consent Law operates and upholds law enforcement procedures in such cases.
The appeal was filed by Conor Alexander Noble against Fond du Lac County following his conviction for operating while intoxicated (OWI), first offense. The decision, dated March 11, 2026, was issued by the Court of Appeals District I and affirms the original judgment entered by Judge Laura J. Lavey in Fond du Lac County Circuit Court (Case No. 2023TR3773).
According to the court documents, Noble was arrested on July 7, 2023, after Sergeant Matt Riemenschneider observed him in a parking lot with open intoxicants present and detected an odor of alcohol. Noble admitted to drinking three beers and performed field sobriety tests which indicated impairment. A preliminary breath test showed an alcohol concentration of 0.12, above the legal limit of 0.08 for drivers with two or fewer prior convictions.
Following his arrest, Noble was read the Informing The Accused (ITA) form as required under Wisconsin’s Implied Consent Law (ICL). When asked if he would submit to a chemical test of his blood, Noble responded either “Yes” or “I guess”—the exact wording was unclear from audiovisual evidence but both were considered affirmative by the circuit court. Riemenschneider documented Noble’s verbal consent before transporting him to the hospital for a blood draw.
Noble moved to suppress the results of his blood test on grounds that his consent was not voluntary and that Wisconsin’s ICL is facially unconstitutional. He testified that he felt intimidated during the encounter but acknowledged that this feeling stemmed from being arrested rather than any specific conduct by Sergeant Riemenschneider.
The appellate court reviewed these claims in detail. It explained that statutes are presumed constitutional unless proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. The opinion cited previous decisions holding that implied consent laws do not violate Fourth Amendment protections as long as actual consent is obtained after informing suspects of their rights and consequences.
The court wrote: “In a facial challenge, the challenger must persuade us that the ‘heavy burden’ to overcome the presumption of constitutionality has been met.” It further noted that “actual consent provided by a conscious driver pursuant to the ICL is constitutional.”
Addressing whether Noble’s consent was voluntary, the court applied factors including police conduct during arrest, clarity of information provided to Noble, and his personal characteristics such as age and education level. The opinion stated: “There is no evidence in the record that Riemenschneider used deception, trickery, or misrepresentation to persuade Noble to consent.” It found no threats or physical intimidation occurred beyond standard arrest procedures.
The conditions at the time were described as cooperative: “The officer properly read the ITA form…when asked by Noble what the test was, the officer stopped reading and explained…that it was a blood draw.”
Noble argued that being handcuffed and seated in a squad car created an inherently coercive environment; however, the court concluded these circumstances were typical for lawful arrests and did not amount to coercion or duress affecting voluntariness.
Regarding equal protection claims—that conscious suspects have fewer rights than unconscious ones—the court held these groups are not similarly situated under law because only conscious drivers can provide actual consent when informed.
Ultimately, after reviewing all factors under established precedent—including State v. Brar—the appellate judge determined: “Under the totality of circumstances…Noble consented to the search freely and voluntarily.”
The judgment also addressed other procedural issues raised by Noble but found them without merit or relevance given its findings on constitutionality and voluntariness.
With this decision, Fond du Lac County’s conviction stands affirmed. The case ID is Appeal No. 2025AP811 / Cir Ct No. 2023TR3773; attorneys’ names are not specified in this document.
Source: 2025AP811_Fond_du_Lac_County_v_Noble_Opinion_Wisconsin_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
