SCOTUS Case Preview: The Rights of An Unconscious Motorist
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: Census Citizenship Question
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.
In The News
WASHINGTON — Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the independent-minded jurist whose bright bow ties and courteous manner symbolized an old-fashioned style of integrity, died Tuesday. He was 99. Although he joined the court as a centrist Republican, he emerged in his later years as... Read More
WASHINGTON — Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s first appointee to the Supreme Court, is proving to be a different kind of conservative. He is a libertarian who is quick to oppose unchecked government power, even in the hands of prosecutors or the police. And... Read More
AUSTIN, Texas — Hoping to make it harder to overturn abortion restrictions, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block abortion clinics and doctors from challenging state laws on behalf of their patients. Such legal challenges have successfully overturned a number... Read More
WASHINGTON - A day after ending their current term with a pair of controversial opinions, the U.S. Supreme Court said Friday it will decide next year whether the Trump administration can shut down Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, a program that shields 800,000 young, undocumented immigrants... Read More
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court will not revive Alabama's ban on second-trimester abortions, the justices announcing Friday they are content to have lower court orders blocking the law to remain in place. Though Alabama's Attorney General Steve Marshall regularly calls the procedure a "dismemberment abortion,"... Read More
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling Thursday that federal judges have no role in settling disputes over partisan gerrymandering appears likely only to intensify efforts in the states to end the practice that allows both political parties to put a stranglehold on electoral majorities. "My... Read More