See § 343.305(9)(a)4, Stats. The issues addressed at this hearing are: (1) whether the officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant, (2) whether the officer correctly informed the defendant under the implied consent law, and (3) whether the suspect refused the test. See § 343.305(9)(a)5, Stats.; see alsoState v. Spring, 204 Wis.2d 343, 350, 555 N.W.2d 384, 388 (Ct.App. 1996). Because Yager does not contest that there was probable cause for his arrest, we need only address the final two issues.
¶ 7. The issues addressed at a revocation hearing under the implied consent law, Wis. Stat. § 343.305, are whether: (1) the officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant; (2) the officer correctly informed the defendant under the implied consent law; and (3) the suspect refused the test. SeeState v. Spring, 204 Wis.2d 343, 350, 555 N.W.2d 384 (Ct.App. 1996). ¶ 8.
¶ 3 Wisconsin's implied consent law is a remedial statute that is to be liberally construed to facilitate the taking of tests for intoxication so as to remove drunk drivers from our highways. State v. Spring, 204 Wis.2d 343, 352–53, 555 N.W.2d 384 (Ct.App.1996). Under WIS. STAT. § 343.305(2), any person who drives or operates a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state is deemed to have given consent to one or more tests of his or her breath, blood or urine, “when requested to do so by a law enforcement officer under sub. (3)(a) or (am) or when required to do so under sub. (3)(ar) or (b).”
Village of Menomonee Falls v.Michelson, 104 Wis.2d 137, 151, 311 N.W.2d 658 (Ct.App. 1981). ¶ 4. The purpose of the implied consent law is to facilitate the taking of tests for intoxication. State v. Spring, 204 Wis.2d 343, 352, 555 N.W.2d 384 (Ct.App. 1996). In light of that purpose, the law is to be liberally construed to effectuate its policies.