Supreme Court rules police can draw blood from unconscious drivers

Mar 2012
59,611
41,097
New Hampshire
Police do not need a search warrant to test the blood alcohol level of an unconscious driver, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The ruling was a victory for Wisconsin, upholding its law that says any person who drives on public roads automatically consents to a blood alcohol test, including someone who is unconscious. A total of 28 states have similar provisions in their implied consent laws.

Supreme Court rules cops can draw blood from unconscious drivers
 
May 2019
6,619
8,268
midwest
The person who did the NBC News analysis is wrong about the WI case. Source is the S.Ct. blog.
:cool:


SCOTUS also holds that state law assuming driver’s consent to blood test for drugs and alcohol, even when driver is unconscious, provides exception to Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement (case page in Mitchell v. Wisconsin at this link).

Holding: The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s judgment – affirming the drunk-driving convictions of Gerald Mitchell, who was administered a warrantless blood test while he was unconscious – is vacated, and the case is remanded.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 27, 2019. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg and Kagan joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Friday13
May 2012
70,482
14,287
By the wall
I always thought they could anyways.

I don't think they even need to contact an actual judge for a warrant do they?
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
78,006
47,766
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
I would have to read the case to know conclusively which side I fall on, but probably the dissent. Unlike implied consent for a breathalyzer, a blood test involves a bodily invasion and should seem to require a warrant.

Interestingly, Breyer voted with the majority, and Gorsuch filed his own dissent.
 
May 2019
6,619
8,268
midwest
I would have to read the case to know conclusively which side I fall on, but probably the dissent. Unlike implied consent for a breathalyzer, a blood test involves a bodily invasion and should seem to require a warrant.

Interestingly, Breyer voted with the majority, and Gorsuch filed his own dissent.
Opinion analysis: Court upholds warrantless blood tests for unconscious drunk-driving suspects – Amy Howe
From the S.Ct. blog website. I'd be interested in your interpretation of this. It appears to me that the S.Ct. did in fact uphold as stated in the OP but not as what is stated on that website (reply post #2 above). It is confusing.
:cool:

 
Jul 2015
33,386
24,959
Florida
Police do not need a search warrant to test the blood alcohol level of an unconscious driver, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The ruling was a victory for Wisconsin, upholding its law that says any person who drives on public roads automatically consents to a blood alcohol test, including someone who is unconscious. A total of 28 states have similar provisions in their implied consent laws.

Supreme Court rules cops can draw blood from unconscious drivers
Maybe the court can say police can RAPE unconscious women in their cars if they are drunk. They're not supposed to be drunk on the roads so if a police officer happens on one, he should be able to take invade her person without consent. I see no real difference.

KAVANAUGH can write the opinion.
 
Nov 2015
8,421
2,872
UK
Police do not need a search warrant to test the blood alcohol level of an unconscious driver, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The ruling was a victory for Wisconsin, upholding its law that says any person who drives on public roads automatically consents to a blood alcohol test, including someone who is unconscious. A total of 28 states have similar provisions in their implied consent laws.

Supreme Court rules cops can draw blood from unconscious drivers
That's bad.
 
Feb 2010
30,873
34,168
Sunny Bournemouth, Dorset
Taking blood is quite a skilled task. Are the police trained in such procedures?

I was making light of it, but having looked it up, it seems that's been the legal case in England for years. (since 1988!)
It has to be a doctor who takes the blood, but the police can require a specimen if the patient is unconscious. "Unless the doctor in charge of the case objects"

Police Procedure: Hospital Patients
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: the bull59