Yes. It's okay for police to do this because it's an emergency. First, the evidence (the alcohol in the blood) is disappearing as the body processes it. Second, the person being unconscious is a serious medical situation that police and doctors have to deal with right away. These two problems happening at once mean police don't have time to stop and get a warrant.

Yes. The blood test was okay, but for a simpler reason. The fact that alcohol is always disappearing from the blood is enough of an emergency by itself. Police should be able to get a blood test from any drunk driving suspect without a warrant, whether they are awake or passed out.

No. The Constitution protects us from searches without a warrant, and drawing blood is a search. Just because a driver is passed out doesn't automatically mean there's no time to get a warrant. An officer can easily call a judge while another takes the person to the hospital. The court shouldn't have made a new, broad rule, especially since the state of Wisconsin never even argued that this was an emergency in the first place.

We shouldn't have decided this case at all. We agreed to answer a question about one law, but then the court answered a completely different question about emergencies that nobody argued about. We should have waited for another case that was actually about this emergency issue.

Yes, it's usually okay for the police to take blood without a warrant if a driver is unconscious and can't do a breath test. This is because alcohol levels in the body naturally go down over time, so it's an emergency situation once the police have good reason to believe the driver is drunk. An unconscious driver can't do a breath test, so a blood test is necessary. It's super important to enforce drunk driving laws to keep people safe. But, there might be some unusual cases where a driver could prove the police only did the blood test to get alcohol evidence and could have gotten a warrant without messing up other important police work.

Once the police have good reason to think a driver is drunk, there's always an emergency to do a blood test right away since the alcohol level is going down. It doesn't matter if the driver is awake or not. The main opinion's rule is too complicated and a simpler rule should be used instead.

Unless there's just no time, the police need to get a warrant before making someone take a blood test. Wisconsin admitted they had time to get a warrant, so that should settle it. The Court ignored its previous rulings and made a new rule that police almost never need a warrant, even when a suspect is unconscious, without a good reason.

The Court shouldn't decide this case based on the emergency exception, since the lawyers and lower courts never talked about that. The Court should have just said it made a mistake in taking on the case and waited for a better case about the emergency exception to come along later.

—the Supreme Court held that the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment almost always permits a blood test without a warrant where the driver was suspected of drunk driving and unconscious.

—established the Fourth Amendment constitutionality of a blood draw from an unconscious driver under the "exigent circumstances" doctrine.

—for an "unusual case" where a defendant is able to show that "his blood would not have been drawn if police had not been seeking BAC information, and that police could not have reasonably judged that a warrant application would interfere with other pressing needs or duties."

—the court examined whether a warrantless blood draw from an unconscious driver violated the Fourth Amendment.

O] ur decisions have not rested on the idea that these laws do what their popular name might seem to suggest—that is, create actual consent to all the searches they authorize

It explained that "exigency exists when (1) BAC evidence is dissipating and (2) some other factor creates pressing health, safety, or law enforcement needs that would take priority over a warrant application."

When police have probable cause to believe a person has committed a drunk-driving offense and the driver's unconsciousness or stupor requires him to be taken to the hospital or similar facility before police have a reasonable opportunity to administer a standard evidentiary breath test, they may almost always order a warrantless blood test to measure the driver's BAC …

Under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, a warrantless search is allowed when "there is compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant."

According to the Alito plurality, police would "almost always" be entitled to conduct a warrantless blood draw to measure a driver's blood alcohol content where the unconsciousness of the driver requires that the driver be taken to a hospital or similar facility.

We are not at liberty to begin the exigency analysis at a point following a suspect's refusal to provide a blood sample where the Supreme Court has indicated it begins earlier.

Yes. When a driver is unconscious and cannot be given a breath test, the exigent-circumstances doctrine generally permits a warrantless blood test. The Court’s reasoning relies on the two-part test from Schmerber v. California, which finds an exigency when (1) evidence is dissipating and (2) another factor creates pressing needs that take priority over a warrant application. Here, the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream satisfies the first part. The driver’s unconsciousness satisfies the second, as it is itself a medical emergency requiring police and medical attention, and it prevents the less intrusive alternative of a breath test. This combination of dissipating evidence and a medical emergency that requires officers to prioritize other duties creates a situation where there is a compelling need for the blood draw and no time to secure a warrant.

Yes. The warrantless blood draw was permissible, but the plurality's reasoning is unnecessarily complex. The correct rule, as stated in his dissent in Missouri v. McNeely, is that the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream always creates a per se exigency once police have probable cause to believe a driver is drunk. This rule should apply regardless of whether the driver is conscious or if other pressing needs exist, as the imminent destruction of evidence alone is sufficient to justify a warrantless search.

No. The warrantless blood draw was unconstitutional because the police must get a warrant if there is time to do so. The Court's precedent in McNeely v. Missouri rejected a categorical approach to exigency for BAC tests, instead requiring a case-by-case analysis of the totality of the circumstances. There is no reason to create a new categorical rule for unconscious drivers, as police will often have sufficient time to obtain a warrant while the suspect is being transported to a hospital. Furthermore, the plurality decided the case on the grounds of exigent circumstances, an argument that Wisconsin expressly waived in the lower courts, and which the Court should therefore not have considered.

This case should have been dismissed as improvidently granted. The Court agreed to hear the case to decide a question about implied consent statutes but instead resolved it on the completely different and unargued ground of the exigent circumstances doctrine. Rather than deciding complex constitutional questions that the parties and lower courts did not address, the Court should have waited for a case that properly presented the issue.

Yes, when a driver is unconscious and cannot be given a breath test, the exigent-circumstances doctrine generally permits a blood test without a warrant because the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream creates an exigency once police have probable cause to believe the driver is drunk. This is because an unconscious driver's medical condition deprives officials of a reasonable opportunity to administer a breath test. Furthermore, in such cases, there is a compelling need for a blood test because enforcing drunk-driving laws is a vital public interest, and BAC tests are crucial links in the chain on which those interests depend. However, this is not an absolute rule, and there may be unusual cases where a defendant can show that the blood draw would not have occurred but for the police seeking BAC information, and that a warrant could have been obtained without interfering with other pressing needs or duties.

The natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream creates an exigency once police have probable cause to believe the driver is drunk, regardless of whether the driver is conscious. The plurality's rule is difficult to administer and should instead be replaced with a per se rule.

Unless there is too little time to do so, police officers must get a warrant before ordering a blood draw. The State of Wisconsin conceded that it had time to get a warrant, and that should be the end of the matter. By departing from the warrant requirement and creating a new presumption of exigent circumstances even when the suspect is unconscious, the plurality disregards the Court's precedents and creates a new categorical rule without justification.

The Court should not decide this case on the exigent circumstances doctrine, which was not discussed by the parties or courts below. The case should have been dismissed as improvidently granted, and the Court should have waited for a case properly presenting the exigent circumstances question.

Mitchell v. Wisconsin

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot