DUI, Implied Consent, and Blood Draws Return to SCOTUS

In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided

Birchfield v. North Dakota

. See Kym's posts

here

and

here

. Today the high court granted certiorari to review a decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Mitchell v. Wisconsin, No.

18-6210

. From the state court decision:

¶2 Gerald Mitchell was convicted of operating while intoxicated and with a prohibited alcohol concentration, based on the test of blood drawn without a warrant while he was unconscious, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 343.305(3)(b) (2013-14). Mitchell contends that the blood draw was a search conducted in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

¶3 We conclude that Mitchell voluntarily consented to a blood draw by his conduct of driving on Wisconsin's roads and drinking to a point evidencing probable cause of intoxication. Further, through drinking to the point of unconsciousness, Mitchell forfeited all opportunity, including the statutory opportunity under Wis. Stat. § 343.305(4), to withdraw his consent previously given; and therefore, § 343.305(3)(b) applied, which under the totality of circumstances herein presented reasonably permitted drawing Mitchell's blood. Accordingly, we affirm Mitchell's convictions.

The case will likely be decided near the end of the term in June or thereabouts.

DUI, Implied Consent, and Blood Draws Return to SCOTUS curated from Crime and Consequences Blog