STATE v. TACKETT, 2003 WI App 111

264 Wis.2d 894, 664 N.W.2d 126

State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Philip S. Tackett, Defendant-Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.
No. 02-2569-CR.
Opinion Released: April 17, 2003. Opinion Filed: April 17, 2003.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Green County: JAMES R. BEER, Judge. Affirmed.

¶ 1. LUNDSTEN, J.[1]

[1] This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to Wis. Stat. §752.31(2)(f) (2001-02). All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2001-02 version unless otherwise noted.

Philip S. Tackett appeals a judgment of the circuit court convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant as a third offense. Tackett contends the implied consent law unconstitutionally coerced his consent to a blood draw and that the blood draw was an unreasonable search and seizure because alternative chemical breath test equipment of equal evidentiary value was available.

¶ 2. Tackett acknowledges that we must reject his first challenge under State v. Wintlend, 2002 WI App. 314, ¶¶ 8-19, 258 Wis.2d 875, 655 N.W.2d 745, review denied (Wis. Jan. 14, 2003) (No. 02-0965-CR), and that we must reject his second challenge under State v. Krajewski, 2002 WI 97, ¶¶ 46-47, 255 Wis.2d 98, 648 N.W.2d 385. Still, Tackett raised these issues due to the possibility that Krajewski or Wintlend might be overturned. However, since Tackett filed his brief-in-chief, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in Krajewski on December 16, 2002, Krajewski v. Wisconsin, cert. denied, 154 L.Ed.2d 634 (2002), and the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied the petition for review in Wintlend on January 14, 2003.