Supreme Court stumped by the case of the
unconscious drunken driver
Send a link to a friend
[April 24, 2019]
By Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court
justices on Tuesday wrestled with whether police need a court-issued
warrant to draw an unconscious suspect's blood in a case involving a
Wisconsin man convicted of drunken driving based on blood obtained
without his consent.
The nine justices appeared divided over the case as they heard about an
hour of arguments in an appeal by the man, Gerald Mitchell, of state
court rulings that endorsed the ability of police to test blood drawn
from an unconscious person.
Mitchell appealed a ruling by Wisconsin's highest court that the blood
draw did not violate the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment
protections against unreasonable searches. Police drew the blood, which
showed his blood-alcohol concentration far above the state's legal
limit, after finding Mitchell shirtless, wet and covered in sand near
the shores of Lake Michigan.
At issue is a Wisconsin law that assumes motorists automatically give
consent to tests of their breath or blood simply by driving on the
state's roads, even if they are unconscious. More than half the 50 U.S.
states have similar laws.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both conservatives,
appeared sympathetic to Wisconsin.
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse," Roberts said, invoking a old legal
maxim. "Why do you need them to sign a piece of paper?"
Alito noted that agreeing to a blood draw could be viewed as "a
condition to the privilege of driving" on Wisconsin's roads.
Liberal justices appeared to sympathize with Mitchell. Justice Sonia
Sotomayor said although motorists generally know that driving under the
influence is illegal, whether they are aware blood can be drawn without
consent is a different issue.
"This is not quite ignorance of the law. This is something substantially
different because you're talking about ... knowledge that your body can
be invaded by police to secure evidence to prove you drove intoxicated,"
[to top of second column]
he U.S. Supreme Court building is pictured in Washington, U.S.,
March 20, 2019. REUTERS/Leah Millis/File Photo
Fellow liberal Justice Elena Kagan said a law like Wisconsin's works
fine when drivers are conscious because they can withdraw consent
when police ask for a blood draw.
"But that falls apart in this situation of the unconscious driver,"
The Supreme Court in recent years has limited police ability to draw
blood without a warrant and without a motorist's consent, and
frowned upon criminal penalties against people who refuse to consent
to a blood draw.
The case dates to 2013 in Wisconsin's Sheboygan County when
Mitchell's neighbor called police to report that Mitchell had driven
away in a van, apparently drunk, and may have been suicidal. He had
taken about 40 pills along with vodka mixed with the soft drink
Mountain Dew, according to court filings. Mitchell later testified
he had been depressed and suicidal.
After police found him, Mitchell fell unconscious as authorities
drove him to a hospital, where they ordered staff to draw his blood
for an alcohol concentration test despite not having a warrant.
Police charged him with operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
A ruling is due by the end of June.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung; Editing by Will
[© 2019 Thomson Reuters. All rights
Copyright 2019 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.