(Supreme Court conference room. Photo credit: Supreme Court of the United States).
Brief writing is now over for a while. Time to get back to blogging.
This is the first in a series of three blog posts about the end of the October 2018 term of the Supreme Court and a look ahead to the October 2019 term. (Remember, terms start the first Monday in October and end at the end of June the following year.) The first post will cover the census case, which is finally over in its own peculiar way, and a Fourth Amendment case that really could affect you. The second will be about the gerrymandering cases and Kisor, that seemingly abstract case that I have been mentioning. I’ll try to make it more concrete. And the last post will be about the October 2019 term, what cases have been granted, which are already scheduled for argument, and generally what we can expect from the next term. Like the term that just ended, there is a lot at stake, I would say even more.
Let’s start with the Fourth Amendment case.
Mitchell v. Wisconsin
In a 5-4 opinion issued on June 27, 2019, a divided Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment generally does not bar states from taking a blood sample from an unconscious drunk-driving suspect without a warrant. (Click on the link above to read the various opinions). As Amy Howe summarizes the case:
Mitchell was charged with driving while intoxicated. He fought to keep the results of the blood test from being used against him, arguing that the Fourth Amendment required the police to get a warrant. The state answered that the blood test was constitutional, because of a state law that assumes both consent to a blood test for anyone who drives on Wisconsin’s roads and that an unconscious driver has not withdrawn his consent.
Writing for four justices – Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh and himself – Justice Samuel Alito explained that although the Fourth Amendment generally requires a warrant for a search, there are a variety of exceptions to this rule, including one for “exigent circumstances,” which allows searches without a warrant to “prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.”
The exigent-circumstances exception, Alito continued, will normally allow police to take blood from an unconscious drunk-driving suspect without having to get a warrant.
Finally, although yesterday’s decision creates a general rule that police do not need to get a warrant to take a blood sample from an unconscious driver, Alito...
