Mitchell v. Wisconsin, SCOTUS No. 18–6210, Decided June 27, 2019. Episode 647 (Duration 22:02) (Police can draw blood from unconscious DUI suspect.)
Unconscious drivers plus natural BAC dissipation create an exigent circumstance for a blood draw.
Subscribe: Apple | Google | Spotify | Android | RSS | Direct DownloadAPPLE PODCASTS GOOGLE PODCASTS
Unconscious Driver Pose An Elevated Risk
The court said in the case of unconscious drivers, who cannot blow into a breathalyzer, blood tests are essential for achieving the compelling interests of stopping drunk driving.
Indeed, not only is the link to pressing interests here tighter; the interests themselves are greater: Drivers who are drunk enough to pass out at the wheel or soon afterward pose a much greater risk.
For these reasons, there clearly is a “compelling need” for a blood test of drunk-driving suspects whose condition deprives officials of a reasonable opportunity to conduct a breath test.
Exigent Circumstances Exist When There Is Injury or Unconsciousness
Thus, exigency exists when
(1) BAC evidence is dissipating and
(2) some other factor creates pressing health, safety, or law enforcement needs that would take priority over a warrant application.
Both conditions are met when a drunk-driving suspect is unconscious, so such suspects, too, a warrantless blood draw is lawful.
See Also
- Mitchell v. Wisconsin, SCOTUS No. 18–6210, Decided June 27, 2019. Episode 647 (Duration 22:02) (Categorical Rule Allows Warrantless Blood Draws From Unconscious Drivers)
- Episode 574 – People v. Pratt, 2018 IL App (5th) 170427 (December) (Warrantless blood draw after an accident deemed unconstitutional blood results excluded.)
- Episode 469 – Warrantless Blood Draws Coming To A Hospital Near You (A Summary Of Recent Warrantless Blood Draw Cases In Illinois).
- Episode 462 – People v. Turner, 2018 IL App (1st) 170204 (February) (good faith exception applies and allows the admissibility of this warrantless blood draw)
- Episode 438 – People v. Eubanks, 2017 IL App (1st) 142837 (December) (really bad defendant held down in the hospital)
- Episode 461 – People v. Hayes, 2018 IL App (5th) 140223 (February) (defendant was not ticketed so so state could not establish consent to the blood draw)
- Episode 558 – People v. Williams, 2018 IL App (2d) 160683 (October) (Challenging this DUI traffic stop went nowhere fast.)
- Episode 439 – People v. Sykes, 2017 IL App (1st) 150023 (December) (no police action when police hold a lady down in the hospital)
- Episode 423 – People v. Brooks, 2017 IL 121413 (November), (our supreme court recently held that mere police participation, absent the private actors acting as an agent or instrumentality of the State, is not state action)
- Episode 319 How Can Police Enforce A Blood Warrant | A Discussion With Anthony Cameron
- Episode 186 – Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 2174 (2016)
- Episode 258 – Jeffery Hall Interview – He Discusses The Krystin Rennie Case
Samuel Partida, Jr. is now prosecuting criminal law cases in an Illinois county near you. He is, therefore, unavailable to answer questions on this site. Always remember, there is no substitute for steady, persistent attention to the cases.