Mitchell v. Wisconsin

Background

Gerald Mitchell, a driver, was arrested after a roadside preliminary breath test showed a very high blood alcohol level. At the police station he was too lethargic for a standard evidentiary breath test, so officers took him to a hospital. He became unconscious and medical staff drew blood under Wisconsin’s implied-consent law. The blood test later showed a BAC above the legal limit, he was charged, and the state courts upheld the blood draw before the Supreme Court took the case.

Reasoning

The Court explained that blood draws are searches and that warrants are normally required, but identified an exception: when a driver is unconscious and cannot take an evidentiary breath test, the urgent need for BAC evidence and the natural loss of alcohol in blood create exigent circumstances that generally allow a warrantless blood test. The majority relied on earlier cases (Schmerber and McNeely) and said officers may usually act without a warrant, though defendants can try to show a case was unusual.

Real world impact

This ruling makes it easier for police and prosecutors to obtain blood evidence from unconscious drivers without first getting a warrant, especially when breath testing is not possible. Hospitals may be asked to draw blood for both medical and investigatory purposes. The decision is not a final ruling on every individual case because courts may still require a remand to test whether the particular facts made a warrant feasible.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas would have adopted a per se rule that alcohol’s natural dissipation always creates exigency; Justice Sotomayor dissented, arguing warrants should be obtained when possible and Wisconsin had conceded exigency.