Blood draws without warrants
Mitchell v. Wisconsin
In brief
The Court sent Mitchell’s case back after Justice Alito and three other justices concluded that an unconscious driver who cannot take a breath test may generally be tested without a warrant.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 5-4 · June 27, 2019 · Opinion by Justice Alito
- What it’s about
- Mitchell challenged a warrantless blood test under Wisconsin’s implied-consent law after becoming unconscious during a suspected drunk-driving arrest.
- Who it affects
- Mitchell’s case returns to Wisconsin’s highest court, and its earlier judgment no longer stands.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court wiped out the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling and sent the case back (vacated and remanded); four justices said the emergency exception generally allows testing when an unconscious driver cannot take a breath test.
The dispute involved the Fourth Amendment’s warrant rule and Wisconsin’s implied-consent law.
Question presented
Whether a statute authorizing a blood draw from an unconscious motorist provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.
What the Court decided
Holding
The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded. 2018 WI 84, 383 Wis. 2d 192, 914 N. W. 2d 151, vacated and remanded. JUSTICE ALITO, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE BREYER, and JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concluded that when a driver is unconscious and cannot be given a breath test, the exigent-circumstances doctrine generally permits a blood test without a warrant.
- Result
- Vacated
The Court's reasoning
Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer and Kavanaugh, concluded that the emergency exception to the warrant rule generally allows a blood test when a driver is unconscious and cannot take a breath test.
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Thomaswrote separately
From the opinions
“If there is time, get a warrant.”
What's next
The Wisconsin Supreme Court will take another look at Mitchell’s case.
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 4 moreShow fewer
Opinion added: Opinion
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Petition
Brief added: Questions Presented
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.