Cohen Law Offices

Get The Help You Need

Call Us Today!

The Independent Source Doctrine Allows the State to Use Hospital Blood Test Records

websitebuilder • November 30, 2023

State v. Van Linn involved an issue of admissibility of evidence. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed a court of appeals ruling that reversed the trial court’s finding that hospital blood test records could not be used as evidence for a defendant charged with OUI.

Van Linn crashed his car into the back of a cabin. He was found bleeding and denied that he was driving the car. First, he was taken to the hospital, where medical staff did a full workup and drew blood. An officer arrived at the hospital and arrested Van Linn on suspicion of DUI.

Van Linn admitted to driving the vehicle, and he was the one who called the police. The officer requested that Van Linn consent to a blood test. He refused, but the officer drew blood anyway without getting a warrant.

The circuit court granted Van Linn's motion to suppress the results of the blood test since there was no warrant and exigent circumstances did not apply. Three months afterward, the prosecutor sought a subpoena to obtain the blood test records from the hospital examination. The court granted the subpoena in light of evidence that demonstrated probable cause.

The State Had an Independent and Untainted Source of Evidence to Prove the BAC

Here, the Supreme Court allowed the hospital's blood test results under the independent source doctrine. Even when there is information that is tainted by evidence that was excluded, the State can obtain other untainted evidence that establishes the fact. The State must show that the illegal conduct neither "affected" the circuit court's decision to approve its subpoena request nor "prompted" the State's decision to seek a subpoena in the first place.

Here, there were numerous other things that prompted the officer, such as the fact that the defendant had a reduced blood alcohol threshold (he had four prior OWI convictions) and admitted that he had been drinking. The State's decision to seek the subpoena was not prompted by the illegal blood draw. It did not matter that the State knew the results of the blood test would show that Van Linn had a BAC well above the limit.

Many criminal cases come down to the admissibility of evidence being used against the defendant. If the prosecution loses a key piece of evidence, it could mean the end of their case. If the defendant successfully appeals, a conviction would be overturned. It is essential that you have legal representation early in your case to challenge any evidence that was illegally seized. It would be too late to contest evidence on appeal if you did not raise the issue at trial.

Contact an Eau Claire Criminal Defense Attorney

If you have been charged with an OUI, you need legal representation for your case. You should not just accept the first plea deal that is offered to you. There may be defenses that you can use for your case. You can call the Cohen Law Offices at (715) 514-5051 or send us a message online for a free initial consultation.

Share by: