Mitchell v. Wisconsin

139 S.Ct. 2525 (2019)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Wisconsin’s implied-consent law is much like those of the other States. It deems drivers to have consented to breath or blood tests if an officer has reason to believe they have committed one of several drug- or alcohol-related offenses. Officers seeking to conduct a BAC test must read aloud a statement declaring their intent to administer the test and advising drivers of their options and the implications of their choice. If a driver’s BAC level proves too high, his license will be suspended; but if he refuses testing, his license will be revoked and his refusal may be used against him in court. A person who is unconscious or otherwise not capable of withdrawing consent is presumed not to have” withdrawn it. Officer Jaeger received a report that D, appearing to be very drunk, had climbed into a van and driven off. Jaeger found D wandering near a lake. Stumbling and slurring his words, D could hardly stand without the support of two officers. Jaeger gave D a preliminary breath test. It registered a BAC level of 0.24%, triple the legal limit. Jaeger arrested D for operating a vehicle while intoxicated and drove him to a police station for a more reliable breath test using better equipment. By the time the squad car reached the station, D too far gone even for a breath test. Jaeger drove D to a nearby hospital for a blood test. D was consciousness and had to be wheeled in. Jaeger read aloud the standard statement giving drivers a chance to refuse BAC testing. Hearing no response, Jaeger asked hospital staff to draw a blood sample. D remained unconscious while the sample was taken, and analysis of his blood showed that his BAC, about 90 minutes after his arrest, was 0.222%. D moved to suppress the results of the blood test based on the Fourth Amendment right against “unreason-able searches” because it was conducted without a warrant. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, and a jury found D guilty of the charged offenses. The appeals court certified two questions to the Wisconsin Supreme Court: first, whether compliance with the State’s implied-consent law was sufficient to show that D’s test was consistent with the Fourth Amendment and, second, whether a warrantless blood draw from an unconscious person violates the Fourth Amendment. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed. The US Supreme Court granted certiorari.