Mitchell v. Wisconsin Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Mitchell v. Wisconsin | 139 S. Ct. 2525 (2019)

Can the government ever draw your blood without a warrant? What if you’re unconscious and suspected of drunk driving? We explore that question in Mitchell versus Wisconsin.

Police received a report that Gerald Mitchell was driving while intoxicated. Officer Alexander Jaeger responded to the call and located Mitchell. By that time, Mitchell had parked his van and was found nearby staggering and slurring his speech. A preliminary breathalyzer test revealed that Mitchell’s blood alcohol content, or B A C, was above the legal limit. Jaeger arrested Mitchell and took him to the police station for a more reliable breath test that’d be admissible in court. Before Jaeger could administer the test, Mitchell lost consciousness. Jaeger took Mitchell to the hospital.

Wisconsin state law provides that all drivers on state roads impliedly consent to have their blood drawn if they’re suspected of drunk driving unless they affirmatively withdraw their consent. Jaeger told Mitchell that he intended to have Mitchell’s blood drawn and advised Mitchell of his options. Being unconscious, Mitchell didn’t withdraw his consent. Accordingly, Jaeger instructed the hospital to draw Mitchell’s blood. Those test results confirmed that Mitchell’s B A C was above the legal limit.

Mitchell was charged with drunk driving. He moved to suppress the blood test, arguing that it violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches. The trial court denied Mitchell’s motion, and he was convicted. Mitchell appealed to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, which certified the appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed Mitchell’s conviction. The United States Supreme Court granted cert.

#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

[undercoloroflaw]

The supreme court made an EGREGIOUS ruling here because they did not have a FULL understanding of the intricacies of implied consent as it applies to INVASIVE procedures on LIVING persons. If I find you unconscious, incapable of fending for self and in peril, (exigent circumstance) this provision of law gives me the authority to PRESUME you would, IF you could, give me consent to take actions that will either improve your condition or save your life. Law enforcement blood draws for alcohol/drug does NEITHER of these things and is therefore an UNLAWFUL act. Any action taken under implied consent MUST be a CRITICAL or necessary action that serves to benefit the individual from which the blood was drawn and NOT a 2nd or 3rd party and certainly NOT to provide law enforcement with incriminating evidence.
Sorry Mr. Policeman, your suspect is not dying, he's just potentially drunk and this does NOT constitute exigency.
There are laws governing invasive procedures on living persons to which law enforcement, attorneys and judges would not likely be familiar. Why would they be? It is beyond their scope and practice. This is an ILLEGAL application of law. Affixed to my driver's license are the words, "IMPLIED CONSENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT IS WITHDRAWN FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE ON THIS LICENSE UP TO AND INCLUDING THE DATE OF EXPIRATION".