[Timm]

If found guilty of refusing a blood test, Lautenschlager's license will be revoked for one year and she will be ordered to undergo alcohol counseling. A conviction on her refusal would also mean a conviction on the drunken driving charge.

This second sentence suggests that a refusal to submit to a test results in an automatic DUI conviction. Is that right? Are there any cheeseheads who know the law in WI who can explain?

And, before someone responds in this way, yes, I understand that WI provides for an administrative suspension of one's license for a year, plus some other penalties, if one doesn't submit to a blood/breath/urine test. That is a distinct matter from a DUI conviction, though. In most states, one's refusal can be used as evidence of DUI, and perhaps even presumptive evidence. I don't see how state law can provide for a automatic conviction of a crime on the basis of refusal to produce evidence of that crime.

I see the article claims that DUI is a "civil violation" in WI, at least for first-time offenders. Is that true? Is that how a "conviction" can be obtained for failure to produce evidence?

If anyone knows the details, I'd appreciate them.

[Chummy]

As I understand, Timm, OWI first offense is a civil violation, but refusing to submit to the more detailed testing following field sobriety tests is a separate offense.

Motorists in Wisconsin drive with what is known as "implied consent."

[ClintonBeGone]

I don't see how state law can provide for a automatic conviction of a crime on the basis of refusal to produce evidence of that crime.

Yes, this seems to be unprecendented and lacking due process. It certainly sounds unconstitutional. Its almost like saying if you don't testify in your murder trial, you're automatically convicted. What a perfect person to challenge the law. And I'm sure she will if she ends up resigning.