SCOTUS: New Rules for Blood Draws in Unconscious Drunk Driver Cases

The United States Supreme Court recently addressed the issue of warrantless blood draws in what they describe as a narrow line of drunk driving cases: when the driver is unconscious and therefore cannot be given a breath test. The Court held in Mitchell v. Wisconsin the exigent circumstances doctrine almost always allows a warrantless blood draw in these cases. In its rationale the Court says, “When a breath test is impossible, enforcement of the drunk-driving laws depends upon the administration of a blood test. And when a police officer encounters an unconscious driver, it is very likely that the driver would be taken to an emergency room and that his blood would be drawn for diagnostic purposes even if the police were not seeking BAC information.” The Court also mentions when officers come upon an accident, they have other issues to tend to and those procedures are incompatible with getting a warrant.

Thus, the Court promulgates a general rule: when a driver is unconscious, a warrant is not needed.

In the case at hand, police received a report that Gerald Mitchell appeared to be very drunk, and he had climbed into a van and driven off. Police found Mitchell walking near a lake. Police said Mitchell could barely stand without the support of two officers. Officers gave Mitchell a preliminary breath test, and he registered a BAC level of 0.24% which is triple the legal limit in Wisconsin. On the way to the hospital for a blood draw, Mitchell lost consciousness, so when the officer asked if he consented to the blood draw, Mitchell’s silence was taken as consent.

Generally, officers need a warrant to draw blood from a suspect. However, an exception exists for exigent circumstances, a warrantless search is allowed when “there is compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant.” The Court notes highway safety is of the upmost importance and obtaining an accurate BAC level is a time sensitive operation, as BAC dissipates with time. Ultimately the Court says, “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.”

The Court does not rule out the possibility a defendant could make the necessary showing that obtaining a warrant would not interfere with other procedures by police.

If you have questions about how this opinion impacts your case, contact us today.