In State v. Reitter, 227 Wis.2d 313, the issue was whether a police officer was required to advise an arrested defendant, charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, that the right to counsel does not apply to the administration of a chemical test under Wisconsin's implied consent statute. Normally, an arrested person must be read their Miranda warnings (the right to remain silent, the right to have counsel, etc.) before being questioned or being requested to incriminate themselves. However, in the State of Wisconsin and many other states, the legislature has crafted an "implied consent law" which requires individuals arrested for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated to submit to a chemical analysis of their breath or blood as a condition of having a driver's license.

Mr. Reitter was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and was read the implied consent form. The implied consent form informs arrested individuals that they are required to submit to a chemical analysis of their breath or blood after being arrested for operating while intoxicated as a condition of having a driver's license. The form warns the arrested person that their driver's license will be suspended if they fail to provide a sample of their breath or blood.

When Mr. Reitter was requested to provide a sample of his breath for testing, he responded by requesting an attorney. The officer continued to read Mr. Reitter the warnings on the "informing the accused" form and requested that Mr. Reitter provide a sample of his breath. On five separate occasions, Mr. Reitter simply responded by indicating that he wanted to see his attorney. As a result, the officer noted that Mr. Reitter refused to submit a sample of his breath or blood and Mr. Reitter's driver's license was suspended. Often times a person's driver's license will be suspended for a period of six months for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. However, there is a mandatory suspension of twelve months as a result of refusing to submit a sample of breath or blood.

Mr. Reitter contended his suspension should be overturned by the Supreme Court because the officer should have informed him that he was not entitled to an attorney prior to submitting to a chemical analysis of his breath or blood. The Supreme Court disagreed. The Supreme Court decided that drivers are deemed to have given implied consent to chemical testing as a condition of receiving their driver's license. Consequently, drivers accused of operating a vehicle while intoxicated have no right to refuse a chemical test. The Supreme Court found that officers who administer a test under the implied consent statute are not required to advise defendants about their Miranda rights. Although the high court refused to require an officer to inform an arrested person that he has no right to an attorney prior to submitting to a chemical test of his breath or blood, the court did indicate it would be courteous and simple for the officer to correct the accused's mistaken assumption.

As a side note, if a person refuses to submit to a chemical analysis of their breath or blood after being arrested for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicted and later is found not guilty of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicted, the person's driver's license is still suspended for a period of at least one year and their refusal is counted as a first offense for purposes of future convictions.