Supreme Court OKs blood draws from unconscious drivers without warrants

[Disir]

The court ruled 5-4 that drawing blood while a driver is unconscious in nearly all cases does not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.

“Thus, when a driver is unconscious,” conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the decision, “the general rule is that a warrant is not needed.”

Conservative Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, along with liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, agreed with the outcome, while the court’s three other liberal justices and conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented.

Though they upheld most warrantless blood tests of drunken-driving suspects, the justices set aside the conviction of Gerald Mitchell, the man at the center of the case who had argued that the blood drawn from him after he had been arrested and fell unconscious violated his constitutional rights.

The justices sent the case back to lower courts, giving Mitchell another chance to prove that the officers’ needs or duties in his case were not so pressing as to leave no time to obtain a warrant.

At issue in the case was a Wisconsin law that assumed motorists automatically give consent to tests of their breath or blood simply by driving on the state’s roads, even if they are unconscious. All 49 other states and the District of Columbia have similar laws, Alito said.
Supreme Court OKs blood draws from unconscious drivers without warrants - Reuters

After so many priors, a warrant shouldn't even be necessary.

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

It would seem top me that it is "implied consent" since the license is a privilege, not a right. If a paramedic crew take a person, who is refusing transport, to the hospital under implied consent if they become unconscious, why would this not apply to the operator of a motor vehicle? Most states require compliance for blood draws as a condition of issuing a license, refusal suspends your license usually.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It would seem top me that it is "implied consent" since the license is a privilege, not a right. If a paramedic crew take a person, who is refusing transport, to the hospital under implied consent if they become unconscious, why would this not apply to the operator of a motor vehicle? Most states require compliance for blood draws as a condition of issuing a license, refusal suspends your license usually.

But it doesn’t mean one is subject to criminal prosecution.

If the state seeks to subject a citizen to criminal prosecution, a warrant is required to obtain evidence – particularly when a citizen is unable to give consent to a search.

“At issue in the case was a Wisconsin law that assumed motorists automatically give consent to tests of their breath or blood simply by driving on the state’s roads, even if they are unconscious. All 49 other states and the District of Columbia have similar laws, Alito said.” ibid

And this is where Alito’s reasoning fails.

A conscious driver can refuse to submit to a breath test, that’s not the case for an unconscious driver.

Yes, refusing to take a breath test will likely result in one’s driver’s license being suspended or revoked, but he won’t be subject to criminal prosecution for driving while intoxicated because the state has no evidence of a crime being committed – citizens have the right to not self-incriminate.

Allowing the state to take the blood of an unconscious driver without his consent and absent a warrant pursuant to criminal prosecution is in clear violation of the Fifth Amendment.

 

[Jets]

Mixed feelings on this ruling. I can see both sides of the argument here.

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

It would seem top me that it is "implied consent" since the license is a privilege, not a right. If a paramedic crew take a person, who is refusing transport, to the hospital under implied consent if they become unconscious, why would this not apply to the operator of a motor vehicle? Most states require compliance for blood draws as a condition of issuing a license, refusal suspends your license usually.

But it doesn’t mean one is subject to criminal prosecution.

If the state seeks to subject a citizen to criminal prosecution, a warrant is required to obtain evidence – particularly when a citizen is unable to give consent to a search.

“At issue in the case was a Wisconsin law that assumed motorists automatically give consent to tests of their breath or blood simply by driving on the state’s roads, even if they are unconscious. All 49 other states and the District of Columbia have similar laws, Alito said.” ibid

And this is where Alito’s reasoning fails.

A conscious driver can refuse to submit to a breath test, that’s not the case for an unconscious driver.

Yes, refusing to take a breath test will likely result in one’s driver’s license being suspended or revoked, but he won’t be subject to criminal prosecution for driving while intoxicated because the state has no evidence of a crime being committed – citizens have the right to not self-incriminate.

Allowing the state to take the blood of an unconscious driver without his consent and absent a warrant pursuant to criminal prosecution is in clear violation of the Fifth Amendment.

You are correct. I forgot to state that the suspension/revocation is an administrative action. I agree a warrant should be required for a criminal prosecution.

 

[SavannahMann]

This is one of those things that I have been harping on. We keep finding excuses not to do what it plainly says in the Constitution. The Right of the People to be secure in their persons and papers, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated.

It is amazing what we can delude ourselves into believing is reasonable. Now it is reasonable to stick a needle into a person. Perfectly reasonable. Now that excuse will be used as a foundation for the next argument about what is reasonable. Hey, if shoving a needle into the arm of a man is reasonable, why not this without a warrant?

 

[Vastator]

It’s a bad ruling. And a worse precedent...