Supreme Court Rules Police Can Withdraw Blood on Unconscious Drunk Drivers

Last week, a divided Supreme Court ruled police can generally draw blood, without a warrant, from unconscious persons suspected of driving drunk or being intoxicated on other drugs.

Generally, the Fourth Amendment requires police to first obtain a warrant before drawing blood from a suspect. But in a 5-4 vote on June 27, the court upheld a Wisconsin state law stating people driving on public roadways have given implied consent to having their blood drawn if police have suspicion they are driving while intoxicated.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Carence Thomas joined Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority vote, according to NPR.

Their decision conflicts previous rulings in which supreme court justices ruled blood draws are a significant intrusion into a person’s privacy and body. The rulings also reasoned there are less intrusive methods of enforcing drunk driving laws against unconscious drivers, like obtaining a warrant.

The recent case arose from an incident involving Gerald Mitchell, who drove to the shore of Lake Michigan, after drinking vodka and taking about 40 pills in 2013.

After a neighbor, who feared Mitchell had driven away in his van, called police, officers arrived to find Mitchell wobbling on his feet and acting belligerent.

After placing him inside a holding cell, police transported him to a hospital where they ordered medical personnel to draw his blood, which showed a blood alcohol level of .22, almost three times above Wisconsin’s legal limit of .08.

After being charged with driving while intoxicated, Mitchell argued the blood draws violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures since officers did not obtain a warrant and he was incapable of consenting to the blood test.

Wisconsin’s state courts ruled against Mitchell.

The Supreme Court decision to uphold those ruling comes almost two years after a national story broke about a Utah cop captured on video violently arresting nurse Alex Wubbels for refusing police to perform a blood draw on her unconscious patient.

Salt Lake City later agreed to pay Wubbels a $500,000 settlement two weeks after detective Jeff Payne filed paper work appealing his firing over the incident.

Last week, a divided Supreme Court ruled police can generally draw blood, without a warrant, from unconscious persons suspected of driving drunk or being intoxicated on other drugs.

Generally, the Fourth Amendment requires police to first obtain a warrant before drawing blood from a suspect. But in a 5-4 vote on June 27, the court upheld a Wisconsin state law stating people driving on public roadways have given implied consent to having their blood drawn if police have suspicion they are driving while intoxicated.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Carence Thomas joined Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority vote, according to NPR.

Their decision conflicts previous rulings in which supreme court justices ruled blood draws are a significant intrusion into a person’s privacy and body. The rulings also reasoned there are less intrusive methods of enforcing drunk driving laws against unconscious drivers, like obtaining a warrant.

The recent case arose from an incident involving Gerald Mitchell, who drove to the shore of Lake Michigan, after drinking vodka and taking about 40 pills in 2013.

After a neighbor, who feared Mitchell had driven away in his van, called police, officers arrived to find Mitchell wobbling on his feet and acting belligerent.

After placing him inside a holding cell, police transported him to a hospital where they ordered medical personnel to draw his blood, which showed a blood alcohol level of .22, almost three times above Wisconsin’s legal limit of .08.

After being charged with driving while intoxicated, Mitchell argued the blood draws violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures since officers did not obtain a warrant and he was incapable of consenting to the blood test.

Wisconsin’s state courts ruled against Mitchell.

The Supreme Court decision to uphold those ruling comes almost two years after a national story broke about a Utah cop captured on video violently arresting nurse Alex Wubbels for refusing police to perform a blood draw on her unconscious patient.

Salt Lake City later agreed to pay Wubbels a $500,000 settlement two weeks after detective Jeff Payne filed paper work appealing his firing over the incident.

- Advertisement -

Support our Mission

Help us build a database of bad cops

For almost 15 years, PINAC News has remained active despite continuous efforts by the government and Big Tech to shut us down by either arresting us for lawful activity or by restricting access to our readers under the pretense that we write about “social issues.”

Since we are forbidden from discussing social issues on social media, we have created forums on our site to allow us to fulfill our mission with as little restriction as possible. We welcome our readers to join our forums and support our mission by either donating, volunteering or both.

Our plan is to build a national database of bad cops obtained from public records maintained by local prosecutors. The goal is to teach our readers how to obtain these lists to ensure we cover every city, county and state in the country.

After all, the government has made it clear it will not police the police so the role falls upon us.

It will be our most ambitious project yet but it can only be done with your help.

But if we succeed, we will be able to keep innocent people out of prison.

Please make a donation below or click on side tab to learn more about our mission.

Subscribe to PINAC

Bypass Big Tech censorship.

Leave a Reply

- Advertisement -

Latest articles