Opinion
No. 2013AP1166–CR.
2013-12-27
STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Mark K. SCHRICK, Defendant–Appellant.
Accordingly, the circuit court denied Schrick's motion for directed verdict on the prohibited alcohol concentration charge. The requirements set forth in § 343.305(5)(d) that tests be administered in accordance with that section to be admissible, does not extend to compliance with administrative code procedures. See City of New Berlin v. Wertz, 105 Wis.2d 670, 674, 677, 314 N.W.2d 911 (Ct.App.1981) (holding that the State is not required to affirmatively prove compliance with administrative code procedures as a foundation for the admission of a breath test result, and that “claimed noncompliance with certain provisions of the [administrative] code goes only to the weight, not to the admissibility, of the breathalyzer test [result].”). Thus, Schrick's argument that Gillett failed to comply with the administrative code procedures when administering the breath test goes to the weight, not to the admissibility, of the breath test. Accordingly, the breath test was admissible under § 343.305(5)(d). 2