Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Supreme Court hears DUI case in which blood was ordered drawn from unconscious driver without a warrant

  1. #1
    #DeSantis2024 Teh One Who Knocks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    5280' Above Sea Level
    Posts
    256,052
    vCash
    10966
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Thanks
    23,816
    Thanked 113,096 Times in 59,906 Posts

    Law Supreme Court hears DUI case in which blood was ordered drawn from unconscious driver without a warrant

    By Danielle Wallace | Fox News




    A Wisconsin DUI case in which police officers ordered the blood of an unconscious man be drawn for evidence without first getting a warrant was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.

    Prosecutors argued that drawing the blood of unconscious drivers helps convict those who kill thousands of people a year in alcohol-related car accidents, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. They said the process of getting a warrant is too inconvenient and that Wisconsin’s implied consent law does not require officers to get a warrant before drawing the blood of those suspected of driving while intoxicated, including individuals who are unconscious at the time.

    Implied consent laws, which exist in different forms in all 50 states, mandate that drivers who are arrested on suspicion of drunken driving agree to a blood test or have their licenses revoked. If a driver denies a blood test, that fact can be used against them in court. Civil rights advocates, libertarian groups and defense lawyers said the law in this case violates the defendant's right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

    Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the libertarian think-tank, the Cato Institute, filed on both sides regarding the case of Wisconsin v. Gerald P. Mitchell. The driver was arrested in 2013 after he blew .24 blood alcohol concentration on a preliminary breath test, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.

    Even though the blood test showed Mitchell had a .22 BAC, he demanded the evidence be removed from court because officers never asked for a warrant. His request was denied and he was convicted of a seventh DUI offense and served three years. Mitchell appealed to state Supreme Court, which upheld the conviction. But state justices could not agree on the rationale behind officers being allowed to take blood of an unconscious suspect without a warrant.

  2. #2
    Take Box B DemonGeminiX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Bum Fuck Egypt, East Jabip
    Posts
    64,807
    vCash
    27021
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Thanks
    45,043
    Thanked 16,893 Times in 11,968 Posts
    Convicted of a 7th DUI offense? Why's he allowed to drive at all after the 3rd DUI?


    Warning: The posts of this forum member may contain trigger language which may be considered offensive to some.

    Music was better when ugly people were allowed to make it.

  3. #3
    #DeSantis2024 Teh One Who Knocks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    5280' Above Sea Level
    Posts
    256,052
    vCash
    10966
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Thanks
    23,816
    Thanked 113,096 Times in 59,906 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DemonGeminiX View Post
    Convicted of a 7th DUI offense? Why's he allowed to drive at all after the 3rd DUI?
    I'm guessing he probably already wasn't allowed to drive. With that many DUI's I would suspect his license has either been suspended long term or revoked completely.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •