Supreme Court Rules Police Can Draw Blood From Drivers Without Warrant
The Supreme Court has ruled that police may order blood drawn from an unconscious person suspected of driving under the influence without a warrant. While that sounds like a possible violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches, justices in support of the practice claimed individuals consent to blood tests just by being on the road.
Their rationale? Wisconsin and a bunch of other U.S. states have laws that already make this legal and there’s a national precedent allowing for exigent circumstances. But let’s start with America’s Dairyland for some background.
In 2013, a Wisconsin man named Gerald Mitchell was found by police with his van parked near Lake Michigan while he took a stroll on the beach. According to an account from NPR, neighbors had contacted emergency services to warn authorities that he was drunk and suicidal. When confronted, Mitchell took a breath test and was transported to a nearby hospital for blood work.
Earlier accounts claimed police immediately believed him to be drunk due to his being shirtless, damp, and staggering. However, during their trip to the hospital, Mitchell passed out in the car. Police ordered his blood drawn anyway. According to court documents, had taken a sizable amount of pills and washed it down with vodka and Mountain Dew and was charged at the hospital for driving under the influence. He later confessed to being extremely intoxicated and suicidal.
However, he also felt that having his blood drawn without consent violated the Fourth Amendment, especially since he wasn’t in the vehicle, and started the appeals process — making it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States (Mitchell v. Wisconsin) in April of this year.
In a 5-4 vote on Thursday, the court upheld a Wisconsin law stipulating that anybody driving on a public road has automatically consented to having their blood drawn if police suspect them of a possible DUI. The court also noted that exigent circumstances, which is the national status quo gives cops the right to make such judgements for themselves.
If you’re unfamiliar with the term “exigent circumstances,” it’s basically any and all exceptions to the general requirement of a warrant under the Fourth Amendment searches and seizures. Police can search your home, person, vehicle, pull you over, arrest you, or (apparently) take your blood without permission if they suspect some criminal wrongdoing. Critics of the practice have claimed that, since there’s no clear standard for a rule applied so broadly, it encourages an abuse of power. The problem, they say, is that officers are effectively green lit to take extreme actions against citizens and their property with no guidelines when they probably should have been forced to procure a warrant.
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayo emphasized that in lower courts, Wisconsin officials had already admitted there had been ample time to get a warrant — but believed the step wasn’t needed because of the state’s implied consent rules. “Wisconsin has not once, in any of its briefing before this Court or the state courts, argued that exigent circumstances were present here,” she argued. “In fact, in the state proceedings, Wisconsin ‘conceded’ that the exigency exception does not justify the warrantless blood draw in this case.”
Sotomayor was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan as Neil McGill Gorsuch claimed the issue never should have reached the Supreme Court in the first place. Meanwhile, Justices Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh joined Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority vote to uphold Wisconsin’s law.
In his concurring opinion, Thomas wrote that because the evidence of alcohol in drivers’ blood will dissipate over time, states can invoke the “exigent-circumstances doctrine” on that basis alone to allow police to order a blood test without a warrant. Explaining why he took a stand apart from Alito’s plurality opinion, Thomas wrote that it “adopts a rule more likely to confuse than clarify.”
Alito’s concurring opinion agreed that speed is vital in obtaining blood-alcohol evidence. But he also said that the demands on police officers’ time contribute to creating exigent circumstances that allow an exception to warrant requirements — especially if an unconscious motorist has caused a crash. And he noted that police usually take such drivers to the emergency room — removing their chance of administering a breath test at the police station.
“Indeed, not only is the link to pressing interests here tighter; the interests themselves are greater: Drivers who are drunk enough to pass out at the wheel or soon afterward pose a much greater risk,” Alito wrote. “It would be perverse if the more wanton behavior were rewarded — if the more harrowing threat were harder to punish.”
Discussing the emergency conditions created by unconscious drivers, Alito said that “forcing police to put off other tasks for even a relatively short period of time may have terrible collateral costs. That is just what it means for these situations to be emergencies,” he wrote, in an opinion that was joined by Breyer, Kavanaugh and Roberts.
[Image: Paul Biryukov/Shutterstock]
Join the conversation
Latest Car ReviewsRead more
Latest Product ReviewsRead more
- Jeff S I don't believe gm will die but that it will continue to shrink in product and market share and it will probably be acquired by a foreign manufacturer. I doubt gm lacks funds as it did in 2008 and that they have more than enough cash at hand but gm will not expand as it did in the past and the emphasis is more on profitability and cutting costs to the bone. Making gm a more attractive takeover target and cut costs at the expense of more desirable and reliable products. At the time of Farago's article I was in favor of the Government bailout more to save jobs and suppliers but today I would not be in favor of the bailout. My opinions on gm have changed since 2008 and 2009 and now I really don't care if gm survives or not.
- Kwik_Shift I was a GM fan boy until it ended in 2013 when I traded in my Avalanche to go over to Nissan.
- Stuart de Baker I didn't bother to read this article. I'll wait until a definitive headline comes out, and I'll be surprised if Tesla actually produces the Cybertruck. It certainly looks impractical for both snowy and hot sunny weather.
- Stuart de Baker This is very interesting information. I was in no danger of buying a Tesla. I love my '08 Civic (stick), and it feels just as responsive as when I bought it 11 years ago with 35k on the clock (now 151k), and barring mishaps, I plan to keep it for the next 25 years or so, which would put me into my mid-90s, assuming I live that long. On your information, I will avoid renting Teslas.
- RHD The only people who would buy this would be those convinced by a website that they are great, and order one sight-unseen. They would have to have be completely out of touch with every form of media for the last year. There might actually be a few of these people, but not very many. They would also have to be completely ignorant of the Hyundai Excel. (Vinfast seems to make the original Excel look like a Camry in comparison.)
I suspect there is a direct connection between this SCOTUS decision and the widely reported and bodycam video of the incident involving Salt Lake police detective Jeff Payne and University of Utah hospital nurse Alex Wubbels. On July 26, 2017, there was a horrific head-on collision between a fleeing driver being chased by another police dept and a semi on the highway. The fleeing driver died at the scene and the truck driver was badly burned and taken, unconscious, to nurse Wubbels' medical facility. Detective Payne arrived a few hours later at the hospital and, at the request of the pursuing police agency (surely to cover their asses), demanded a sample of the unconscious semi driver's blood without a warrant from the nurse on duty, Alex Wubbels, citing 'implied consent'. Unfortunately for Detective Payne, the Salt Lake PD had agreed to a policy to not do exactly this about a year prior. Payne claimed no knowledge of the policy, so Nurse Wubbels provided Detective Payne with a copy. After cooling his heels for a couple hours, and discussing it with his superior, Payne had had enough of being told "No" by nurse Wubbels, grabbed the struggling, shrieking nurse (it sure looked like resisting arrest), slapped the cuffs on her, and told her she was being arrested for failure to comply and interferring with police. After sitting her in a police cruiser for a while, and Payne and his boss trying unsuccessfully to change her mind, they released her. The other PD had also told Payne and his boss (before Wubbels' manhandling) to disregard the request but Payne went ahead and roughed her up, anyway. Payne was subsequently fired and his supervisor demoted. The gist is that, just like police having free license to do anything they want (including blowing people away) by simply saying, "they feared for their lives", with this latest SCOTUS ruling, all they have to say to get an unconscious person's blood is that they "suspect them of driving under the influence" with exactly zero legitimate probable cause.
The #1 thing ignored here is : driving is _not_ a right ~ . If you drive you should be willing to follow the rules . I agree that this guy having not been in his vehicle should have not been forced to give blood but that's an entirely different situation apart from you who know you're going to break the law crying wolf about 'nanny state' , 'librals' (of course) and the rest of the tripe you snowflakes always spew when you're feeling guilty . Try acting responsibly once in your lives . -Nate