Justice Samuel Alito wrote that in such circumstances where
the driver is unconscious, the court holds that the “exigent circumstances rule
almost always permits a blood test without a warrant.”
In reaching this conclusion the court discusses case
precedent, looking to Schmerber and McNeely to determine where this case sits on the
exigency spectrum.
McNeely was about the minimum degree of urgency common to
all drunk driving cases. In Schmerber, a car accident heightened that urgency.
And here Mitchell’s medical condition did just the same. Mitchell’s stupor and
eventual unconsciousness also deprived officials of a reasonable opportunity to
administer a breath test.
The court noted that there are exceptions to the warrant
requirement of the Fourth
Amendment, and under the exception for exigent circumstances, a warrantless
search is allowed when “there is compelling need for official action and no
time to secure a warrant.”
To determine whether exigency exists where a suspected drunk
driver is unconscious, the court looked at two elements: whether the BAC
evidence is dissipating, and when some “other factors creates pressing health,
safety, or law enforcement needs which would take priority over an application
for a warrant.”
Thus, when a driver is unconscious, the court imposed the
general rule that a warrant is not needed.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately, concurring with
the judgement, but arguing that the court should apply a per se rule that he
had proposed in McNeely—that “the natural metabolization of alcohol in the
blood stream creates an exigency once police have probable cause to believe the
driver is drunk regardless of whether the driver is conscious.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor was joined by Justices Ruth Bader
Ginsburg and Elena Kagan in dissent, arguing that under the Fourth Amendment
police officers must always seek to get a warrant before ordering a blood draw.
“When the aim of a search is to uncover evidence of a crime, the Fourth
Amendment generally requires police to obtain a warrant.”
Sotomayor argued that warrants serve as a “check against
searches that violate the Fourth Amendment by ensuring that a police officer is
not made the sole interpreter of the Constitution’s protections.” Further, the
dissent noted that a blood draw provides access to information beyond the BAC
level, and as such is an invasion of bodily integrity which “disturbs an
individual’s expectations of privacy.”
Additionally, the dissent argued that precedent cases Schmerber and McNeely “establish
that there is no categorical exigency exception for blood draws, although
exigent circumstances might justify a warrantless blood draw on the facts of a
particular case.”
The dissent also noted that the exigency exception was not
an argument that Wisconsin presented at any point throughout the proceedings of
this case. Rather, Wisconsin had conceded that the exigency exception does not
apply to this case and would not justify the warrantless blood draw. Sotomayor
pointed out that the Supreme Court is a court of review, and stated that the
court “is not in the business of volunteering new rationales that were neither
raised nor addressed below.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote separately to dissent, arguing
that the case should have been dismissed and the question of the exigent
exception and circumstances which would create such an exception should be
considered in another case that presents such circumstances.
To read more CLICK HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment