WI: On a OUI2, a condition of bail of alcohol testing and treatment was a reasonable and constitutional condition of bail

On a OUI2, a condition of bail of alcohol testing and treatment was a reasonable condition of bail and did not violate the Fourth Amendment under the special needs doctrine. State v. Wilcenski, 2013 WI App 21, 346 Wis. 2d 145, 827 N.W.2d 642 (2013):

P14 Wilcenski also argues that, in conditioning his release on a program that involves drug and alcohol testing, the circuit court has impermissibly forced him to consent to unconstitutional searches. Although the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution generally prohibit searches executed without a warrant issued upon probable cause, exceptions are made “when ‘special needs beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.'” State v. Guzman, 166 Wis. 2d 577, 587-88, 480 N.W.2d 446 (1992) (citation omitted). Such a special need has been found to exist when drug testing is employed to protect the safety of the public. See id. at 588 & n.6. This exception thus would apply to testing as part of a condition of release imposed to protect public safety.

P15 Other jurisdictions also have found that conditions requiring drug testing for release imposed on an individual basis do not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. See Oliver, 682 A.2d at 189-190; York, 892 P.2d at 814-15. In York, the California supreme court upheld a decision that random drug testing was a permissible condition of release upon a court’s consideration of the specific facts and circumstances of each defendant’s case. York, 892 P.2d at 806, 816. The District of Columbia court of appeals likewise found that a condition of release requiring drug testing for an admitted drug abuser was not an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. Oliver, 682 A.2d at 192-193.

Oliver v. United States, 682 A.2d 186 (D.C. 1996).
In re York, 9 Cal. 4th 1133, 40 Cal. Rptr. 2d 308, 892 P.2d 804 (1995).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.