ET: WASHINGTON—An unconscious person suspected of drunk driving forfeits his right to refuse consent for a blood draw aimed at gathering evidence against him because it was his own decisions that led to his unconsciousness, a lawyer for Wisconsin told the Supreme Court.
On one hand, the case of accused drunk driver Gerald P. Mitchell’s appeal against a conviction based on a forced blood draw—while he was unconscious—comes as civil libertarians become increasingly vocal in their criticism of what they consider to be government-sanctioned invasions of privacy and unreasonable searches.
On the other hand, government officials and anti-drunk-driving groups laud increasingly aggressive policing, saying it saves lives by keeping drunk drivers off the roads.
On the political right, Rutherford Institute President John W. Whitehead is critical of what he terms “the grim reality of life in the American police state,” in which constitutional rights of “due process, privacy, bodily integrity, the right to not have police seize our property without a warrant, or search and detain us without probable cause—amount to nothing when the government and its agents are allowed to disregard those prohibitions on government overreach at will.”
A few years ago, Herman Schwartz wrote in the left-wing publication, The Nation, that the Fourth Amendment, which “was designed to stand between us and arbitrary governmental authority … has been shattered, leaving our liberty and personal integrity subject to the whim of every cop on the beat, trooper on the highway, and jail official.”
In May 2013, Mitchell was depressed and took around 40 pills with vodka and Mountain Dew before driving. Police found Mitchell walking near his van and administered a breathalyzer test that found his blood alcohol content (BAC) was 0.24 percent, or triple the state’s legal limit for driving. Mitchell was confined and moved to a hospital. Police made hospital personnel draw his blood while he remained unconscious. His BAC at 90 minutes after being arrested was 0.222 percent, so he was charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated. more
If there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person was drunk while operating a vehicle taking a blood sample while he/she is unconscious isn’t an unreasonable intrusion. The blood sample will either prove or disprove their innocence. Let’s not mix this up with real government abuse such as seizing your property because of mere suspicion of illegal activity or a persons unwillingness to explain where a large sum of money came from.
Get it through your heads…. this is not a free country, and we all belong to the state.
I guess we could just go back to “the cop said he was drunk, just by looking at him”.
The standard has been for many years, “implied consent”. Meaning, we sign something when we get a driver’s license that says we give consent to be tested in return for receiving the DL. No sign, no DL. I think a person without a DL would have a better legal argument that they did NOT give consent, implied or otherwise.
@”freespeech” forum – you are a Russian bot. DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT and go suck ghey Putin’s dick!
@scr_north
If the police believed you had committed a theft, by your reasoning they could come into your house, without a warrant, and search the premises. As long as you were asleep.
Driving is and has always been a priviledge and not a right. Abide by the rules or else you lose.
The big fat weasel word in the 4th Amendment is unreasonable. If you are a govt-loving statist, you’ll find lots of govt behavior “reasonable” that I would most emphatically not.
Furthermore, the statists’ favorite canard, the “social contract”, is bogus. A contract implies voluntary participation by all involved, yet no individual citizen is ever given the option of declining to participate without dire consequences. A contract entered into under coercion is not binding.
Finally, the argument that a driver licensee must relinquish basic liberty in order to use the govt-built roads is seriously weakened by the history of road-building. No one can seriously argue that the benefits of a comprehensive road network are not immense, however those roads were planned and build by the same crony capitalists that use govt for their own enrichment today. The conditions under which we citizens are “permitted” to drive on our own roads are only partially for our benefit. Much of the body of traffic law is for the benefit of govt enforcers, govt-regulated insurance companies whose products we are ordered to purchase whether we want/need them or not, and for land speculators / developers to get the kind of roads they want where they want them…and paid for with somebody else’s money.
So I will continue to be a hard-assed stickler when it comes to 4th amendment searches and seizures. To all govt agents: GET A WARRANT.
@ Lowell, the difference here is that we have “Implied Consent laws” that mandate a chemical test after being arrested for DUI. If you consciously refuse then you get your license suspended and the refusal can (and will) be used against you in court.
Most states even have “forced” withdrawal laws. Here in California if you are in an accident that has caused injuries the cops can literally drag you to the hospital and hold you down while a blood sample is taken.
@ anonymous, don’t be daft. The reason we have laws like Miranda and the Exclusionary Rule is that in the past cops did abuse their powers and infringe on our civil liberties. Better training, ubiquitous camera phones, and case law has forced the cops to behave better, this is a good thing.
One of the main tenets of conservatism is the adherence and fealty to the rule of law. If you don’t like the Implied Consent Law, then either don’t drive or work to get it changed. Yes, the government by nature overreaches, and the preservation of our civil liberates require an ever vigilant populace, but I’m
not big on anarchy. Jurisprudence must be managed, not abandoned.
If I’m in a coma, for whatever reason, the state can do what it want’s to me.
Unless I’m a female passed out drunk on a sofa, then you can’t invade my body sexually, I cannot consent!
By the way, enforcement certainly does NOT keep drunks from driving, it renders onerous punishment on those found to be driving under the influence…… BIG fookin difference!
I am not a proponent of drunk driving.
“Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.” Geo. Orwell
@Lowell; well if a storefront had a broken pane of glass, a trail of blood leading to a broken open cash register where they found blood smeared drycleaning receipt and a few bloody dollar bills on the floor and upon continuing to follow the blood trail to somebody’s house whose address matched the receipt found at the crime I think that would be good enough evidence to enter the home. Giving up a blood test while unconscious if there is REASONABLE grounds to suspect impairment isn’t a wholesale voiding of a persons rights. Hell, maybe they take the urine from the catheter bag if that gives them accurate readings of intoxication. In any event I think, as I mentioned there are plenty of other instances where rights are being tromped on that need our attention now.
When they came for the drunk drivers I said nothing because I hate them with deadly hate and a drunk driver totaled the ’71 Delta 88 I was driving and I was doing the speed limit, 50mph, he clipped the rear-end trying to pass me in his truck.
I, for one, support the cheese heads victory. I’m tired of hearing about all these “I was too drunk to consent to a gynecological ‘exam’ — so it’s your fault” caterwauling. You pass out, and you’re mine, baby!
“Driving is and has always been a priviledge and not a right.”
That is errant nonsense. A “privilege” granted by whom, exactly?
You take two tests (written and driving). You pass those tests. You pay the fees. You have proved you are knowledgeable AND ABLE to safely drive the PUBLIC streets. You are licensed based on that determination – you most surely HAVE NOT been granted a “privilege.” Your sovereign did not just “feel” disposed to “grant” you the “privilege” of driving.
Same as with a Plumbing License, or an Electrical License, or an AC License – you PROVE that you are qualified to do that which you are licensed to do.
If you (at some later point) fail to apply by all the rules and regulations in accord with your license, that license can (and should) be revoked.
None of which has any bearing on “self-incrimination” (“… be a witness against himself …”) or “illegal search and seizure (“The right … to be secure in their persons …”).”
izlamo delenda est …