Posted on 06/29/2019 7:12:25 AM PDT by SMGFan
Yesterday a divided Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment generally does not bar states from taking a blood sample from an unconscious drunk-driving suspect without a warrant.
The issue came to the Supreme Court in the case of Gerald Mitchell, whom police found six years ago on a beach in Sheboygan, Wisconsin. Mitchell was wet, shirtless, covered in sand and slurring his words. Police arrested Mitchell after a preliminary breath test indicated that his blood-alcohol level was three times the legal limit. But those test results couldnt be used in court, and police soon realized that Mitchell was too drunk to do a second breath test, so they took him to the hospital for a blood test instead. Before they arrived at the hospital, Mitchell had passed out. But hospital staff drew blood anyway, obtaining a sample with a blood-alcohol level of 0.222.
Mitchell was charged with driving while intoxicated. He fought to keep the results of the blood test from being used against him, arguing that the Fourth Amendment required the police to get a warrant. The state answered that the blood test was constitutional, because of a state law that assumes both consent to a blood test for anyone who drives on Wisconsins roads and that an unconscious driver has not withdrawn his consent.
Writing for four justices Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh and himself Justice Samuel Alito explained that although the Fourth Amendment generally requires a warrant for a search, there are a variety of exceptions to this rule, including one for exigent circumstances, which allows searches without a warrant to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.
The exigent-circumstances exception, Alito continued, will normally allow police to take blood from an unconscious drunk-driving suspect without having to get a warrant. Blood-alcohol limits serve an important purpose, Alito wrote: They are needed for enforcing laws that save lives. And they need to be performed promptly, Alito added, because alcohol will disappear from the bloodstream over time. Evidence is literally disappearing, he summarized, by the minute. When a suspect cant take a breath test, then the only option is to perform a blood test; indeed, Alito observed, it would be perverse if it were harder to do the blood test when someone is unconscious, and therefore even more intoxicated.
Moreover, Alito noted, the fact that the driver is unconscious will create an extra burden on police officers, who likely will have to take the driver to the hospital not just for the blood test itself but for urgent medical care. The drivers condition may create other problems that take up the officers time for example, preserving evidence or directing traffic. Having to deal with all of these issues, Alito posited, would create a dilemma for police: It would force them to choose between prioritizing a warrant application, to the detriment of critical health and safety needs, and delaying the warrant application, and thus the blood-alcohol test. And although technology has made it possible for police to get a warrant faster and more easily, the time required has shrunk, but it has not disappeared.
Thought court would require a warrant.
It would force them to choose between prioritizing a warrant application, to the detriment of critical health and safety needs, and delaying the warrant application,...”
Those who give up Freedom for safety...
Those who give up Freedom have freedom taken from them for safety enhancing the power of the state...
If one is drunk on a beach etc, the presumption is you drove drunk? Hmm.
Maybe with video evidence showing time/ condition of arrival, but otherwise seems to defy logic.
I guess it is a good thing to not drink/use other drugs.
It doesn’t have to make sense, it’s the law.
Based on the facts of this case, the taking of a blood sample was a 4th amendment violation. He was just sitting in his car passed out. There was no exigent circumstance. There was no crime other than being drunk. There was no accident to investigate. They could have convicted him the old fashioned way: testimony of the witnesses.
There are times when it would be ok to draw a mans blood without his consent. I dont think this was one of them.
We are definitely living in a post-constitutional era.
Won’t be long before they officially recognize thought crimes now...
Your vehicle does not have to be running in order to be charged with DUI. The standard in many jurisdictions is “Care and Control”. If you’re passed out in the back seat, you are charged with a DUI.
The only way to avoid the charge (maybe) is to ensure the vehicle’s keys are NOT in the vehicle.
With the constantly moving goalposts and the varying methods of arrest/testing, it’s quite obvious to the thinking person that the whole DUI thing has morphed from “safety” to revenue generation.
Exigent circumstances has long been considered an exception to the warrant requirement. The blood-alcohol thing generally lasts around three hours. I didn’t read the whole ruling but there should be something in there about a genuine attempt to get a warrant within a reasonable time first, and if unable, then maybe a warrantless blood test (”search of persons”) if there is clear probable cause to do so.
Also, don’t forget, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions IF constitutional apply ONLY to the parties in the case at hand and is NOT NATIONAL LAW.
The Constitution reserves national law to ONE BODY ONLY: CONGRESS.
So a similar situation on i.e. The Jersey Shore would not permit taking blood without a warrant despite this rule. (Honestly the opinions get heavy in legal terms)
Surprised this opinion was overlooked by freepers or no one cared for the issue?
Yup, if state law so directs.
Constitutionally, state sovereignty and state law prevails - SCOTUS has no say if, say, Jersey Shore, is not a party to the SCOTUS case.
Nobody except the parties in the individual case or controversy are bound by a SCOTUS decision and even that is ONLY if the SCOTUS decision is constitutional.
I like Alito. I helped him with his computers when we had the same zip-code and he answered legal questions I had about shell corporations.
But, in effect, here is saying that the ends trump the Constitution. I know him better. He couldn't possibly believe this. One can always come up with slippery-slope situations but they shouldn't be the basis of our law.
ML/NJ
The fact of the matter is that the cops didnt think this was important enough to wake up a judge to get a warrant. Based on these facts, most judges would have told the cops to leave him alone. He was not operating a vehicle and his only real crime was that he was drunk in public (maybe). It sounds like he was not even on the road.
This case was a giant waste of taxpayer money. The DA should have reduced the charge to misdemeanor public nuisance or dropped that charges altogether. The fact that they let this go to the Supreme Court is a clear example of government overreach. The fact that the Supreme Court upheld this is an example of Judicial overreach.
Very good and cogent points.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.