SCOTUS Case Preview: The Rights of An Unconscious Motorist

April 12, 2019 by Dan McCue

This is one of five noteworthy Supreme Court cases that will be heard between April 16 and April 23. You can read the other previews here:

Also on April 23, the justices will consider whether a state statute authorizing a blood draw from an unconscious motorist provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.

The underlying facts of the case are these: In May 2013, Gerald Mitchell, a resident of Wisconsin, was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving.

While en route to the police station, the arresting officer noticed Mitchell had become lethargic and drove him to a nearby hospital instead.

The officer read Mitchell a statutorily mandated form regarding the state implied consent law, but by then the driver was too incapacitated to indicate his understanding or consent and then fell unconscious.

Without a warrant, at the request of the police, hospital workers drew Mitchell’s blood, which revealed his blood alcohol concentration to be .22.

It was Mitchell’s seventh offense for driving under the influence. During his trial, Mitchell moved to suppress the results of the blood test on the ground that his blood was taken without a warrant and in the absence of any exceptions to the warrant requirement.

Prosecutors argued that under the implied-consent statute, police did not need a warrant to draw his blood.

Wisconsin, like 28 other states, has an implied consent law that says that by driving a vehicle, motorists consent to submit to chemical tests of breath, blood, or urine to determine alcohol or drug content.

The trial court sided with the prosecution and allowed the results of the blood test into evidence. Mitchell was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison.

Mitchell appealed and the case was ultimately sent to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin with respect to the issue of whether the warrantless blood draw of an unconscious motorist pursuant to Wisconsin’s implied consent law violates the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement officers. A search and seizure is considered unreasonable if it is conducted by police without a valid search warrant, and does not fall under an exception to the warrant requirement.

A divided Supreme Court of Wisconsin upheld the search, but left unresolved questions about its constitutionality.

The case is  18-6210 Mitchell v. Wisconsin.

Supreme Court

Center for American Progress Mulls Proposal for Supreme Court Term Limits
Supreme Court
Center for American Progress Mulls Proposal for Supreme Court Term Limits
August 10, 2020
by Kate Michael

WASHINGTON - While the Constitution does not expressly grant lifetime appointment for Supreme Court justices, it has, since the nation’s founding, been inferred from Article III, Section I, that “The Judges… shall hold their Offices during good Behavior” has meant career tenure. Today, due to advances... Read More

Supreme Court Won't Halt Challenged Border Wall Projects
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Won't Halt Challenged Border Wall Projects

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court declined by a 5-4 vote Friday to halt the Trump administration's construction of portions of the border wall with Mexico following a recent lower court ruling that the administration improperly diverted money to the project. The court's four liberal justices dissented, saying... Read More

With DACA Ruling, Did Supreme Court Grant Trump New Powers to Reshape Health Care?
Immigration
With DACA Ruling, Did Supreme Court Grant Trump New Powers to Reshape Health Care?

President Donald Trump came into office vowing to repeal and replace Obamacare. While he successfully neutralized the health care law’s requirement that everyone carry insurance, the law remains in effect. When Fox News host Chris Wallace noted that Trump has yet to put forward a replacement... Read More

John Roberts’ Latest Deciding Vote Spurs Wrath of Conservatives
Supreme Court
John Roberts’ Latest Deciding Vote Spurs Wrath of Conservatives

The latest Supreme Court vote cast by Chief Justice John Roberts, rejecting an effort by a Nevada church to ease limits on attendance at its services during the coronavirus pandemic, was condemned by conservative lawmakers. Roberts was the decider late Friday, joining the court’s liberals in... Read More

With DACA Ruling, Did Supreme Court Grant Trump New Powers to Reshape Health Care?
Political News
With DACA Ruling, Did Supreme Court Grant Trump New Powers to Reshape Health Care?

President Donald Trump came into office vowing to repeal and replace Obamacare. While he successfully neutralized the health care law’s requirement that everyone carry insurance, the law remains in effect. When Fox News host Chris Wallace noted that Trump has yet to put forward a replacement... Read More

Justice Ginsburg Says Cancer Has Returned, But She Won't Retire
Supreme Court
Justice Ginsburg Says Cancer Has Returned, But She Won't Retire
July 17, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Friday she is receiving chemotherapy for a recurrence of cancer, but has no plans to retire from the Supreme Court. The 87-year-old Ginsburg, who spent time in the hospital this week for a possible infection, said she began chemotherapy... Read More

News From The Well
scroll top