|
Mitchell vs WI Thu 27 Jun 19
Operating a vehicle under intoxicated at triple the limit
State law presumes implied consent while unconscious
Alito + Roberts, Breyer, and Kavanaugh concluded exigent circumstances permits a warrantless blood test
Birchfiled vs ND: blood tests are searches under the Fourth
MO vs McNeeley: prevent the imminent destruction of evidence, its fleeting nature alone was not enough for exigence
Schmerber vs CA: during an accident was exigence in 1966
Unconsciousness deprives a breath test
There is a compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant under McNeeley
Schmerber test for exigence: blood evidence dissipates
Some other factor takes priority under enforcement
Unconsciousness itself is a medical emergency
Thomas: per se once probable cause of drunkenness leads to exigence regardless of consciousness
SD vs Neville: used refusal of blood test in 1983
Arrest upon probable cause allows revocation of license automatically over due process in Mackey vs Montrym in 1979
Adopts a rule for the category when a motorist is believed to have driven under the influence of ethanol is unconscious
and thus cannot be given a breath test
Exigence exampled:
Bringham City vs Stuart 2006: occupant of home requires assistance
MI vs Tyler 1978: building on fire
US vs Santana 1976: armed robber entered home
Thomas concurred in judgment
Groh vs Ramirez 2004: warrants support searches
KY vs King 2011: generally secure a warrant as a default
Birchfeld: blood draws are not search incident to arrest
Sotomayor + Ginsburg, and Kagan
A warrant was required because there was time (nearly 93 minutes)
Wisconsin argued its implied consent law
Because the blood test is more intrusive than the breath test, the warrant requirement applies save particular exigence.
Bumper vs NC 1968: consent must be “freely and voluntarily given”
Schneckloth vs Bustamonte 1973: exigence from the totality of the circumstance – which Wisconsin never took
up; this is a Court of review, not of first view.
Restraint of the Court should allow full litigation
Yee vs Escondido 1992: the benefits of developed arguments on both sides and lower court opinions squared addressing the
question, the premise of our adversary system
Drawing blood requires a delay enough for a warrant.
Dissipation of ethanol also takes time.
Warrants can be quickly obtained as streamlined electronically.
Unconscious subjects will have higher blood ethanol.
That a suspect went to the hospital does not need urgent medical attention, even when unconscious as the plurality states.
The privacy interest at stake goes well beyond physical discomfort.
Welsh vs WI 1984: urgent need for warrantless searches
Gorsuch: T
|
