“We conclude that the incapacitated driver provision is unconstitutional because the implied consent that incapacitated drivers are deemed to have given and presumed not to have withdrawn does not satisfy any exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. However, we also conclude that the circuit court should not have suppressed the test result in this case because the State has met its burden to prove that the officer who drew Prado’s blood acted in objective good-faith reliance on the constitutionality of the incapacitated driver provision. Accordingly, we reverse the order suppressing the test result and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” State v. Prado, 2020 Wisc. App. LEXIS 299 (June 25, 2020).
The CI was corroborated by a controlled buy. State v. Stubbs, 2020-Ohio-3464, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 2400 (5th Dist. June 23, 2020).