Under the “open fields" doctrine, evidence that a body was found 450 feet from the defendant's house during random digging done at the direction of the sheriff acting without a warrant was properly admitted into evidence. Conrad v. State,
63 Wis. 2d 616,
218 N.W.2d 252.
Seizure by police of a large quantity of marijuana from the defendant's 155-acre farm did not contravene their 4th-amendment rights. State v. Gedko,
63 Wis. 2d 644,
218 N.W.2d 249.
The search of the defendant's wallet after his arrest on unrelated charges that led to the discovery of a newspaper article about a crime that, after questioning, the defendant admitted to committing was proper in order to find weapons or contraband that might have been hidden there. State v. Mordeszewski,
68 Wis. 2d 649,
229 N.W.2d 642.
The seizure by police officers of a box of cartridges from under the edge of a couch on which the defendant was resting at the time of his arrest was proper under the plain-view doctrine, since if police have a prior justification to be present in a position to see an object in plain view and its discovery is inadvertent, the object may be seized, and the use of a flashlight by one of the officers did not defeat the inadvertence requirement. Sanders v. State,
69 Wis. 2d 242,
230 N.W.2d 845.
A warrantless search of 2 persons for concealed weapons was reasonable when an armed robbery with a sawed-off shotgun had been committed a short time before by two men, one of whom matched the description given for one of the robbers. Penister v. State,
74 Wis. 2d 94,
246 N.W.2d 115.
The doctrine of exigency is founded upon actions of the police that are considered reasonable. The element of reasonableness is supplied by a compelling need to assist the victim or apprehend those responsible, not the need to secure evidence. West v. State,
74 Wis. 2d 390,
246 N.W.2d 675.
A warrantless search by a probation officer was constitutionally permissible when probable cause existed for the officer to attempt to determine whether the probationer had violated the terms of probation. State v. Tarrell,
74 Wis. 2d 647,
247 N.W.2d 696.
The plain view doctrine does not apply if the observation is not made inadvertently or if the officer does not have the right to be in the place from which the observation is made. State v. Monahan,
76 Wis. 2d 387,
251 N.W.2d 421.
The criteria used as justification for warrantless searches of students by teachers are discussed. Interest of L.L. v. Washington County Cir. Ct.
90 Wis. 2d 585,
280 N.W.2d 343 (Ct. App. 1979).
A warrantless entry under the emergency rule justified a subsequent entry that did not expand the scope or nature of the original entry. La Fournier v. State,
91 Wis. 2d 61,
280 N.W.2d 746 (1979).
An investigatory stop-and-frisk for the sole purpose of discovering a suspect's identity was lawful under the facts of the case. State v. Flynn,
92 Wis. 2d 427,
285 N.W.2d 710 (1979).
Furnishing police with the bank records of a depositor who had victimized the bank was not an unlawful search and seizure. State v. Gilbertson,
95 Wis. 2d 102,
288 N.W.2d 877 (Ct. App. 1980).
Evidence obtained during a mistaken arrest is admissible as long as the arresting officer acted in good faith and had reasonable articulable grounds to believe that the suspect was the intended arrestee. State v. Lee,
97 Wis. 2d 679,
294 N.W.2d 547 (Ct. App. 1980).
A warrantless entry into the defendant's home was validated by the emergency doctrine when the officer reasonably believed lives were threatened. State v. Kraimer,
99 Wis. 2d 306,
298 N.W.2d 568 (1980).
The warrantless search of a fisherman's truck by state conservation wardens under statutory inspection authority was presumptively reasonable. State v. Erickson,
101 Wis. 2d 224,
303 N.W.2d 850 (Ct. App. 1981).
Under
Michigan v. Tyler, the warrantless search of an entire building on the morning after a localized fire was reasonable as it was the continuation of the prior night's investigation that had been interrupted by heat and nighttime circumstances. State v. Monosso,
103 Wis. 2d 368,
308 N.W.2d 891 (Ct. App. 1981).
A warrantless entry into a home was validated by the emergency doctrine when an official's reasonable actions were motivated solely by the perceived need to render immediate aid or assistance, not by the need or desire to obtain evidence. State v. Boggess,
115 Wis. 2d 443,
340 N.W.2d 516 (1983).
Police having probable cause to believe a vehicle contains criminal evidence may search the vehicle without a warrant or exigent circumstances. State v. Tompkins,
144 Wis. 2d 116,
423 N.W.2d 823 (1988).
Fire fighting presents exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless entry. A fire fighter may contact police to inform them of the presence of illegal possessions in plain view. A subsequent warrantless search and seizure is proper. State v. Gonzalez,
147 Wis. 2d 165,
432 N.W.2d 651 (Ct. App. 1988).
A reasonable police inventory search is an exception to the warrant requirement. At issue is whether an inventory was a pretext for an investigative search. State v. Axelson,
149 Wis. 2d 339,
441 N.W.2d 259 (Ct. App. 1989).
When effecting a lawful custodial arrest of an individual in his home, a law enforcement officer may conduct a search of closed areas within the immediate area of the arrestee even though the search imposes an infringement on the arrestee's privacy interests. State v. Murdock,
155 Wis. 2d 217,
455 N.W.2d 618 (1990).
Under the circumstances presented, an officer properly conducted an inventory search resulting in the discovery of contraband in a purse left in a police car because the search was conducted pursuant to proper department policy. State v. Weide,
155 Wis. 2d 537,
455 N.W.2d 899 (1990).
Police corroboration of innocent details of an anonymous tip may give rise to reasonable suspicion to make a stop under the totality of circumstances. A suspect's actions need not be inherently suspicious in and of themselves. State v. Richardson,
156 Wis. 2d 128,
456 N.W.2d 830 (1990).
The validity of a “Good Samaritan" stop or entry requires that the officer had the motive only to assist and not to search for evidence, had a reasonable belief that the defendant needed help, and once the entry was made absent probable cause, that objective evidence existed giving rise to the investigation of criminal behavior. State v. Dunn,
158 Wis. 2d 138,
462 N.W.2d 538 (Ct. App. 1990).
The reasonableness of a search does not come into question unless a person had a reasonable privacy expectation. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in TDD communications made from the dispatch area of a sheriff's department. State v. Rewolinski,
159 Wis. 2d 1,
464 N.W.2d 401 (1990).
A parolee's liberty is conditional. A judicially issued warrant is not required for the seizure of an alleged parole violator in his home. State v. Pittman,
159 Wis. 2d 764,
465 N.W.2d 245 (Ct. App. 1990).
The evidentiary search of a person not named in a search warrant, but present during the search of a residence reasonably suspected of being a drug house, was reasonable. State v. Jeter,
160 Wis. 2d 333,
466 N.W.2d 211 (Ct. App. 1991).
A warrantless search of an apartment for evidence of occupancy when the police reasonably believed the tenant had vacated and the occupants were not legitimately on the premises was not unreasonable. The defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment or in property kept there. State v. Whitrock,
161 Wis. 2d 960,
468 N.W.2d 696 (1991).
When a convicted defendant is awaiting sentencing for a drug related offense and probation is a sentencing option, the judge may order, without a warrant, probable cause, or individualized suspicion, that the defendant submit to urinalysis to determine if drugs are present. State v. Guzman,
166 Wis. 2d 577,
480 N.W.2d 446 (1992).
A blood test not taken in compliance with the implied consent law is admissible if the taking of the sample meets 4th amendment reasonableness standards. Under
Schmerber,
384 U.S. 757, the drawing of a blood sample against a person's will is reasonable when: 1) drawn incident to an arrest; 2) there is a clear indication that the desired evidence will be found in the blood sample; and 3) exigent circumstances exist. State v. Krause,
168 Wis. 2d 578,
484 N.W.2d 347 (Ct. App. 1992). But see Missouri v. McNeely,
569 U.S. 141,
133 S. Ct. 1552,
185 L. Ed. 2d 696 (2013); Birchfield v. North Dakota,
579 U.S. 438,
136 S. Ct. 2160,
195 L. Ed 2d 560 (2016).
The question of whether the forcible extraction of a blood sample is a reasonable search by 4th amendment standards is not limited to whether the force is necessary to accomplish a legitimate police objective. Instead, whether the force used is excessive is determined by an evaluation of whether the officers' actions are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting the officers. The court judges the reasonableness of a questioned action by balancing its intrusion on the individual's 4th amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests and from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. State v. Krause,
168 Wis. 2d 578,
484 N.W.2d 347 (Ct. App. 1992).
The exception allowing the warrantless search of automobiles is not extended to a camper trailer unhitched from a towing vehicle. State v. Durbin,
170 Wis. 2d 475,
489 N.W.2d 655 (Ct. App. 1992).
A warrantless search of a commercial premises without the owner's consent when a licensing ordinance provided that the licensed premises “shall be open to inspection at any time" was illegal. State v. Schwegler,
170 Wis. 2d 487,
490 N.W.2d 292 (Ct. App. 1992).
The frisk of a person not named in a search warrant during the execution of the warrant was reasonable when the occupants of the residence were very likely to be involved in drug trafficking. Drugs felt in a pocket during the frisk were lawfully seized when the officer had probable cause to believe there was a connection between what was felt and criminal activity. State v. Guy,
172 Wis. 2d 86,
492 N.W.2d 311 (1992).
A warrantless protective sweep of a residence incident to an arrest requires the police to have a reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts that the residence harbors an individual posing a danger to the officers. State v. Kruse,
175 Wis. 2d 89,
499 N.W.2d 185 (Ct. App. 1993).
The 6-factor analysis for use in determining the reasonableness of an investigatory stop is discussed. State v. King,
175 Wis. 2d 146, N.W.2d (Ct. App. 1993).
The rule that a judicial determination of probable cause to support a warrantless arrest must be made within 48 hours applies to Wisconsin. The failure to comply did not require suppression of evidence not obtained because of the delay where probable cause to arrest was present. State v. Koch,
175 Wis. 2d 684,
499 N.W.2d 153 (1993).
Students have no reasonable privacy expectation in lockers when a school adopts a written policy retaining ownership and possessory control of the lockers. Interest of Isiah B.
176 Wis. 2d 639,
500 N.W.2d 637 (1993).
An officer's step onto the threshold of the defendant's home constituted an entry subject to constitutional protection. State v. Johnson,
177 Wis. 2d 224,
501 N.W.2d 876 (Ct. App. 1993).
A defendant under lawful arrest has a diminished privacy interest in personal property inventoried by jail authorities and a warrantless search of the property when there is probable cause to believe it contains evidence is valid. State v. Jones,
181 Wis. 2d 194,
510 N.W.2d 784 (Ct. App. 1993).
A warrantless entry by uniformed officers to make arrests after undercover agents gained permissive entrance to the premises was justified under the consent exception and no exigent circumstances were required. State v. Johnston,
184 Wis. 2d 794,
518 N.W.2d 759 (1994).
A non-parolee living with a parolee has a legitimate expectation of privacy in shared living quarters, but a warrantless search authorized as a condition of parole can reasonably extend to all areas in which the parolee and non-parolee enjoy common authority. Evidence found in such a search may be used against the non-parolee. State v. West,
185 Wis. 2d 68,
517 N.W.2d 482 (1994).
The failure to conduct a probable cause hearing within 48 hours of arrest is not a jurisdictional defect and not grounds for dismissal with prejudice or voiding of a subsequent conviction unless the delay prejudiced the defendant;'s right to present a defense. State v. Golden,
185 Wis. 2d 763,
519 N.W.2d 659 (Ct. App. 1994).
A determination that an area was within a defendant's immediate control at the time of arrest does not give police authority to generally search the premises. Only a limited search is justified. State v. Angiolo,
186 Wis. 2d 488, N.W.2d 923 (Ct. App. 1994).
The plain view exception applies if the following criteria are met: 1) the officer has prior justification for being present; 2) the evidence is in plain view and its discovery inadvertent; and 3) the seized item and facts known by the officer at the time of seizure provide probable cause to believe there is a connection between a crime and the evidence. State v. Angiolo,
186 Wis. 2d 488, N.W.2d 923 (Ct. App. 1994).
Unlike private homes, warrantless inspections of commercial premises are not necessarily unreasonable. A warrantless inspection of a dairy farm under authority of ss. 93.08, 93.15 (2), 97.12 (1) and related administrative rules made without prior notice and without the owner being present was not unconstitutional. Because the administrative rules govern operations, equipment, and processes not typically conducted in residential areas, the rules and statutes sufficiently preclude making warrantless searches of residences. Lundeen v. Dept. of Agriculture,
189 Wis. 2d 255,
525 N.W.2d 758 (1994).
An arrest warrant was not legal authority to enter and search the home of a third party based on an officer's simple belief that the subject of the warrant might be there. The mere fact that the subject could leave was not an exigent circumstance justifying the warrantless search when the warrant was a pick-up warrant for failure to pay a traffic fine. State v. Kiper,
193 Wis. 2d 69,
532 N.W.2d 698 (1995).
Suppression of evidence is not required when a law enforcement officer obtains evidence outside his or her jurisdiction. Any jurisdictional transgression violates the appropriate jurisdiction's authority, not the defendant's rights. State v. Mieritz,
193 Wis. 2d 571,
534 N.W.2d 632 (Ct. App. 1995).
A warrantless search of a vehicle was constitutional when the defendant fled the vehicle to avoid arrest. The defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle. State v. Roberts,
196 Wis. 2d 445,
538 N.W.2d 825 (Ct. App. 1995),
94-2583.
To find a pat-down search to be reasonable requires the officer to have a reasonable suspicion that a suspect is armed, looking at the totality of the circumstances. The officer's perception of the area as a high-crime area, the time of day, and the suspect's nervousness are all factors that may be considered. State v. Morgan,
197 Wis. 2d 200,
539 N.W.2d 887 (1995),
93-2089.
A probation officer may conduct a warrantless search. That the underlying conviction is subsequently overturned does not retroactively invalidate the search. State v. Angiolo,
207 Wis. 2d 561,
558 N.W.2d 701 (Ct. App. 1996),
96-0099.
An initial traffic stop is not unlawfully extended by asking the defendant if he has drugs or weapons and requesting permission to search. When there is justification for the initial stop, it is the extension of the stop beyond the point reasonably justified by the stop and not the type of questions asked that render a stop unconstitutional. State v. Gaulrapp,
207 Wis. 2d 600,
558 N.W.2d 696 (Ct. App. 1996),
96-1094.
An officer has the right to remain at an arrested person's elbow at all times. When an officer accompanied a juvenile in his custody into the juvenile's house, leaving the juvenile's “elbow" to enter a bedroom where incriminating evidence was found, monitoring of the juvenile stopped and an unconstitutional search occurred. State v. Dull,
211 Wis. 2d 652,
565 N.W.2d 575 (Ct. App. 1997),
96-1744.
A threat to the safety of the suspect or others is an exigent circumstance justifying the warrantless entry of a residence. The mere presence of firearms does not create exigent circumstances. When conducting the unannounced warrantless entry creates the potential danger, that conduct cannot justify the warrantless entry. State v. Kiekhefer,
212 Wis. 2d 460,
569 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1997),
96-2052.
The likelihood that evidence will be destroyed is an exigent circumstance justifying the warrantless entry of a residence. The mere presence of contraband does not create exigent circumstances. State v. Kiekhefer,
212 Wis. 2d 460,
569 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1997),
96-2052.
Detaining a person at his home and transporting him about one mile to the scene of an accident in which he was involved was an investigative stop and not an arrest, moved the person within the vicinity of the stop within the meaning of s. 968.24, and was a reasonable part of an ongoing accident investigation. State v. Quartana,
213 Wis. 2d 440,
570 N.W.2d 618 (Ct. App. 1997),
97-0695.
The warrantless search of the defendant's purse when it was being returned to her while still in custody was authorized when the search would have been authorized at the time of the arrest and when the return of the purse could have given the defendant access to a weapon or evidence. State v. Wade,
215 Wis. 2d 684,
573 N.W.2d 228 (Ct. App. 1998),
97-0193.
When a third party lacks actual common authority to consent to a search of a defendant's residence, the police may rely on the third party's apparent authority, if that reliance is reasonable. There is no presumption of common authority to consent to a search and the police must make sufficient inquiry to establish apparent authority. State v. Kieffer,
217 Wis. 2d 531,
577 N.W.2d 352 (1998),
96-0008.
A warrantless entry may be justified when police engage in a bona fide community caretaker activity, although the ultimate test is reasonableness, considering the degree of public interest and exigency of the situation, the circumstances surrounding the search, whether an automobile is involved, and whether there are alternatives to entry. State v. Paterson,
220 Wis. 2d 526,
583 N.W.2d 190 (Ct. App. 1998),
97-2066. See also State v. Ferguson,
2001 WI App 102,
244 Wis. 2d 17,
629 N.W.2d 788,
00-0038; State v. Ziedonis,
2005 WI App 249,
287 Wis. 2d 831,
707 N.W.2d 565,
04-2888. But see Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. ___,
141 S. Ct. 1596,
209 L. Ed. 2d 604 (2021).
Reasonable suspicion required in a
Terry investigative search is a common sense test of what under the circumstances a reasonable police officer would reasonably suspect in light of his or her experience. Police in an area known for drug dealing were justified to stop a driver when at nearly the same time they observed a woman approach then turn from the driver's parked car when she seemed to notice the police and the driver immediately exited the parking lot he was in. State v. Amos,
220 Wis. 2d 793,
584 N.W.2d 170 (Ct. App. 1998),
97-3044.
There is an expectation of privacy in commercial property that is applicable to administrative inspections. Because administrative inspections are not supported by probable cause, they will not be reasonable if, instead of being conducted to enforce a regulatory scheme, they are conducted as a pretext to obtain evidence of criminal activity. State v. Mendoza,
220 Wis. 2d 803,
584 N.W.2d 174 (Ct. App. 1998),
97-0952. Reversed on other grounds.
227 Wis. 2d 838,
596 N.W.2d 736 (1999),
97-0952.
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a hospital emergency or operating room. An officer who was present, with the consent of hospital staff, in an operating room during an operation and collected, as evidence, cocaine removed from an unconscious defendant's intestine did not conduct a search and did not make an unreasonable search. State v. Thompson,
222 Wis. 2d 179,
585 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1998),
97-2744.
A warrant authorizing the search of a particularly described premises may permit the search of vehicles owned or controlled by the owner of, and found on, the premises. State v. O'Brien,
223 Wis. 2d 303,
588 N.W.2d 8 (1999),
96-3028.
The “emergency doctrine" justifies a warrantless search when an officer is actually motivated by a perceived need to render aid and a reasonable person under the circumstances would have thought an emergency existed. State v. Richter,
224 Wis. 2d 814,
592 N.W.2d 310 (Ct. App. 1999),
98-1332.
Reasonable suspicion justifying an investigative stop may be based on an anonymous tip that does not predict future behavior. The key concern is the tipster's veracity. Officers' corroboration of readily observable information supports a finding that because the tipster was correct about innocent activities, he or she is probably correct about the ultimate fact of criminal activity. State v. Williams,
225 Wis. 2d 159,
591 N.W.2d 823 (1999),
96-1821.
A traffic stop must be based on probable cause, not reasonable suspicion. If the facts support a violation only under a legal misinterpretation, no violation has occurred, and by definition there can be no probable cause that a violation has occurred. State v. Longcore,
226 Wis. 2d 1,
594 N.W.2d 412 (Ct. App. 1999),
98-2792.
Being in a high crime area, making brief contact with a car, and hanging around a neighborhood, each standing alone would not create reasonable suspicion justifying a
Terry stop. When these events occurred in sequence and were considered with the officers training and experience, the reputation of the neighborhood, and the time of day, there was enough to create reasonable suspicion. State v. Allen,
226 Wis. 2d 66,
593 N.W.2d 504 (Ct. App. 1999),
98-1690.
A picture of a mushroom on the defendant's wallet, his appearance of nervousness, and the lateness of the hour were insufficient factors to extend a stop. State v. Betow,
226 Wis. 2d 90,
593 N.W.2d 499 (Ct. App. 1999),
98-2525.
The owner of a commercial property has a reasonable expectation of privacy in those areas immediately surrounding the property only if affirmative steps have been taken to exclude the public. State v. Yakes,
226 Wis. 2d 425,
595 N.W.2d 108 (Ct. App. 1999),
98-0470.
A home's backyard and back door threshold were within the home's curtilage; an officer's warrantless entry was unlawful and evidence seized as a result of the entry was subject to suppression. State v. Wilson,
229 Wis. 2d 256,
600 N.W.2d 14 (Ct. App. 1999),
98-3131.
When the 2 other occupants of a vehicle had already been searched without any drugs being found, a search of the third occupant based solely on the odor of marijuana was made with probable cause and was reasonable. State v. Mata,
230 Wis. 2d 567,
602 N.W.2d 158 (Ct. App. 1999),
98-2895.
A probation officer may search a probationer's residence without a warrant if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the terms of probation are being violated, but the officer may not conduct a warrantless search as a subterfuge to further a criminal investigation to help the police evade the usual warrant and probable cause requirements. State v. Hajicek,
230 Wis. 2d 697,
602 N.W.2d 93 (Ct. App. 1999),
98-3485.
The risk that evidence will be destroyed is an exigent circumstance that may justify a warrantless search. When suspects are aware of the presence of the police, that risk increases. The seriousness of the offense as determined by the overall penalty structure for all potentially chargeable offenses also affects whether exigent circumstances justify a warrantless search. State v. Hughes,
2000 WI 24,
233 Wis. 2d 280,
607 N.W.2d 621,
97-1121.
A frisk of a motor vehicle passenger that occurred 25 minutes after the initial stop that was a precautionary measure, not based on the conduct or attributes of the person frisked, was unreasonable. State v. Mohr,
2000 WI App 111,
235 Wis. 2d 220,
613 N.W.2d 186,
99-2226.
There are 4 well-recognized categories of exigent circumstances that have been held to authorize a law enforcement officer's warrantless entry into a home: 1) hot pursuit of a suspect, 2) a threat to the safety of a suspect or others, 3) a risk that evidence will be destroyed, and 4) a likelihood that the suspect will flee. The state bears the burden of proving the existence of exigent circumstances. State v. Richter,
2000 WI 58,
235 Wis. 2d 524,
612 N.W.2d 29,
98-1332.
“Hot pursuit," defined as immediate or continuous pursuit of a suspect from a crime scene is an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless search. An officer is not required to personally observe the crime or fleeing suspect. State v. Richter,
2000 WI 58,
235 Wis. 2d 524,
612 N.W.2d 29,
98-1332.
When a vehicle passenger has been seized pursuant to a lawful traffic stop, the seizure does not become unreasonable because an officer asks the passenger for identification. The passenger is free to refuse to answer, and refusal will not justify prosecution nor give rise to reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. However, if the passenger chooses to answer falsely, the passenger can be charged with obstruction. State v. Griffith,
2000 WI 72,
236 Wis. 2d 48,
613 N.W.2d 72,
98-0931.
The property of a passenger in a motor vehicle may be searched when the police have validly arrested the driver but do not have a reasonable basis to detain or probable cause to arrest the passenger. State v. Pallone,
2000 WI 77,
236 Wis. 2d 162,
613 N.W.2d 568,
98-0896.
The search of a crawl space in a ceiling, which was located in an area where police had heard much activity, was large enough to hide a person, and was secured by screws that had to be removed with a screwdriver, was a reasonable “protective sweep" to search for persons who would pose a threat to the police as they executed an arrest warrant for a murder suspect. State v. Blanco,
2000 WI App 119,
237 Wis. 2d 395,
614 N.W.2d 512,
98-3153.
A police officer performing a
Terry stop and requesting identification could perform a limited search for identifying papers when the information received by the officer was not confirmed by police records, the intrusion on the suspect was minimal, the officer observed that the suspect's pockets were bulging, and the officer had experience with persons who claimed to have no identification when in fact they did. State v. Black,
2000 WI App 175,
238 Wis. 2d 203,
617 N.W.2d 210,
99-1686.
A warrantless blood draw is permissible when: 1) the blood is taken to obtain evidence of intoxication from a person lawfully arrested; 2) there is a clear indication evidence of intoxication will be produced; 3) the method used is reasonable and performed in a reasonable manner; and 4) the arrestee presents no reasonable objection. State v. Thorstad,
2000 WI App 199,
238 Wis. 2d 666,
618 N.W.2d 240,
99-1765. But see Birchfield v. North Dakota,
579 U.S. 438,
136 S. Ct. 2160,
195 L. Ed 2d 560 (2016).