Mitchell v. Wisconsin
204 L. Ed. 2d 1040, 139 S.Ct 2525 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When police have probable cause to believe a person has committed a drunk-driving offense and the driver's unconsciousness prevents a breath test, the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement generally permits a warrantless blood test.
Facts:
- Police received a report that Gerald Mitchell, appearing intoxicated, was driving a van.
- Officer Jaeger found Mitchell wandering near a lake, slurring his words and unable to stand without support.
- A preliminary breath test showed Mitchell's Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) was 0.24%, three times the legal limit.
- Jaeger arrested Mitchell for intoxicated driving and began transporting him to the police station for a more reliable evidentiary breath test.
- At the station, Mitchell was too lethargic for a breath test, prompting Jaeger to take him to a hospital for a blood test instead.
- On the way to the hospital, Mitchell became completely unconscious.
- At the hospital, while Mitchell remained unconscious, Jaeger instructed medical staff to draw a blood sample for BAC analysis.
- The subsequent blood analysis, performed about 90 minutes after his arrest, showed a BAC of 0.222%.
Procedural Posture:
- Gerald Mitchell was charged in a Wisconsin trial court with operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
- Mitchell moved to suppress the blood test results, arguing the warrantless search violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress.
- A jury convicted Mitchell of the charged offenses.
- Mitchell appealed to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court, the state's highest court, affirmed the conviction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a warrantless blood draw from an unconscious motorist suspected of drunk driving, taken for the purpose of obtaining blood-alcohol content evidence, violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches?
Opinions:
Plurality - Alito
No. A warrantless blood draw from an unconscious drunk-driving suspect is generally permissible under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that an exigency exists when BAC evidence is dissipating and another factor creates pressing needs that take priority over a warrant application. A driver's unconsciousness is a medical emergency that creates such needs, as police must attend to the suspect's health and safety, which may leave no time to secure a warrant before the evidence is lost. This creates a scenario where the search is reasonable without a warrant, though a defendant could prevail in an unusual case by showing police had no pressing duties that would have been compromised by a warrant application.
Concurring in judgment - Thomas
No. The warrantless blood draw was constitutional, but for a simpler reason. The natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream always creates an exigent circumstance in every drunk-driving case where police have probable cause. This per se rule should apply whether the suspect is conscious or unconscious, making a warrantless blood draw permissible without the plurality's more complex, rebuttable presumption.
Dissenting - Sotomayor
Yes. A warrantless blood draw from an unconscious motorist violates the Fourth Amendment when police have time to get a warrant. The State of Wisconsin conceded in the lower courts that no exigent circumstances existed in this specific case, and the Court should not have decided the case on a ground the state waived. Precedent requires a case-by-case analysis for exigency, and the plurality's creation of a near-categorical rule for unconscious drivers ignores this precedent and the fact that modern technology often allows for warrants to be obtained quickly without jeopardizing evidence. In this case, the 90-minute delay between arrest and the blood draw likely provided sufficient time to obtain a warrant.
Dissenting - Gorsuch
Would not answer the question. The Court should have dismissed the case as improvidently granted. The Court accepted the case to decide a question of implied consent but instead resolved it on the grounds of exigent circumstances, a complex constitutional issue that was neither raised by the parties nor argued in the courts below. This prevented a fully developed record and argument on the dispositive issue, and the Court should have waited for a case that properly presented the question.
Analysis:
This decision creates a significant, near-categorical exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement for a specific class of drunk-driving cases. While stopping short of adopting a true per se rule, it establishes a strong presumption that exigent circumstances exist when a drunk-driving suspect is unconscious, shifting the burden to the defendant to prove otherwise in an 'unusual case.' This approach carves out a large exception to Missouri v. McNeely's case-by-case analysis for determining exigency in BAC testing cases, providing police with clearer guidance but reducing judicial oversight for unconscious suspects.
