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

Clear Divide Emerges Among Justices Over Citizenship Question on Census Supreme Court
Clear Divide Emerges Among Justices Over Citizenship Question on Census
April 23, 2019
by Dan McCue

The conservative and liberal justices of the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to be sharply divided over the Trump administration's plan to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. The high court's ruling in the case could affect how many seats states have in the U.S.... Read More

Supreme Court to Take Up LGBT Job Discrimination Cases Supreme Court
Supreme Court to Take Up LGBT Job Discrimination Cases
April 22, 2019
by Dan McCue

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to take up the question of whether provisions of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting employment discrimination applies to LGBT individuals. The justices said they would hear Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, which has been consolidated with Altitude... Read More

What's In a Name? The Supreme Court Will Decide in ‘FUCT’ Trademark Dispute Supreme Court
What's In a Name? The Supreme Court Will Decide in ‘FUCT’ Trademark Dispute
April 16, 2019
by Dan McCue

Perhaps it should have been docketed as the case that dare not speak its name. At least that's how it seemed Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court convened to hear arguments on whether the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech extends to words and symbols... Read More

SCOTUS Case Preview: The Rights of An Unconscious Motorist Supreme Court
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: April 16: Should State Law Govern Offshore Wages? April 16: Due Process and Trusts April 17: Election Fraud April 23:... Read More

SCOTUS Case Preview: Census Citizenship Question Supreme Court
SCOTUS Case Preview: Census Citizenship Question
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: April 16: Should State Law Govern Offshore Wages? April 16: Due Process and Trusts April 17: Election Fraud April 23:... Read More

SCOTUS Case Preview: Election Fraud Supreme Court
SCOTUS Case Preview: Election Fraud
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: April 16: Should State Law Govern Offshore Wages? April 16: Due Process and Trusts April 23: Census Citizenship Question April... Read More

Straight From The Well
scroll top