Mitchell v. Wisconsin
Headline: Court allows warrantless blood draws from unconscious suspected drunk drivers, making it easier for police to test blood when breath tests are not possible.
Holding: When police have probable cause to believe someone drove drunk and the person is unconscious or too impaired for a breath test, officers may generally order a warrantless blood draw to measure blood-alcohol concentration.
- Permits warrantless blood draws when suspected drunk drivers are unconscious and breath tests are unavailable.
- Defendants can still ask courts on remand to show a warrant would have prevented the blood draw.
- Leaves states' implied-consent statutes insufficient alone to justify warrantless blood draws.
Summary
Background
Gerald Mitchell was found stumbling near a lake and showed signs of heavy intoxication. A roadside breath check registered 0.24% BAC, he was arrested, and later became too lethargic to provide an evidentiary breath sample. At the hospital, while unconscious, a blood sample was taken about ninety minutes after arrest and showed a BAC of about 0.222%. Mitchell moved to suppress the blood result as an unreasonable, warrantless search. Wisconsin defended the draw under its implied-consent statute; the Wisconsin courts upheld the conviction and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide whether such a statute allows warrantless blood draws from unconscious drivers.
Reasoning
The Court focused on whether unconscious drivers who cannot perform breath tests present an urgent situation that allows warrantless blood testing. Relying on prior decisions about blood testing and the public safety interest in enforcing blood-alcohol limits, the plurality held that when a suspect is unconscious and a breath test is not reasonably available, the compelling need to preserve BAC evidence and competing medical or safety priorities mean officers may, in most such cases, order a blood draw without a warrant. The Court did not base its decision on Wisconsin's implied-consent law and remanded to let Mitchell try to prove his blood would not have been drawn but for law enforcement’s investigative purpose.
Real world impact
The ruling makes it easier for police to obtain blood tests from unconscious suspected drunk drivers when breath testing is impossible. It does not automatically permit all warrantless draws; defendants may still seek to show on remand that the particular facts did not justify a warrantless test. The decision also leaves open challenges to implied-consent laws as a source of actual consent.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Thomas agreed with the result but urged a broader per se rule about dissipation of alcohol. Justice Sotomayor (joined by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan) dissented, arguing warrants should be obtained when possible and criticizing the Court for reaching an issue the State had not pressed. Justice Gorsuch would have dismissed the case as improvidently granted.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?