About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


15 J. Bus. & Tech. L. Proxy 1 (2021)

handle is hein.journals/jbtprxy15 and id is 1 raw text is: Mitchell v. Wisconsin: Warrantless Blood Tests on Unconscious DWI Suspects are Almost Always Consistent with the Fourth Amendment PINCHAS BALSAM*© In Mitchell v. Wisconsin, the Supreme Court addressed whether police can obtain a warrantless blood sample from an unconscious driving while intoxicated (DWI) suspect.1 The Court held that when a DWI suspect is unconscious, the police can almost always order a blood test without obtaining a warrant.2 Nevertheless, the Court remanded the case to give Mitchell an opportunity to show that the police could have reasonably obtained a warrant in his particular case.3 The Court's holding is correct because it is consistent with Court precedent and properly balanced the public policy need to deter drunk driving and DWI suspects' Fourth Amendment4 privacy rights. Alcohol related car collisions cause 10,000 to 20,000 fatalities per year in the United States.5 Accordingly, to reduce drunk driving related deaths, there is a compelling need for states to enforce DWI criminal statutes.6 To enforce DWI statutes, police rely on three technologies to measure the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of DWI suspects.7 The first technology police use to gauge BAC is the preliminary, roadside breath test. Generally, roadside breath tests only establish probable cause to arrest a DWI suspect but are insufficient evidence to obtain a DWI conviction.' To obtain © Pinchas Balsam, 2021. * Pinchas Balsam is a student at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. The author wishes to thank his editors at the Journal of Business and Technology Law for their guidance and feedback. The author would also like to thank his family and friends for their encouragement and support. 1. 139 S. Ct. 2525 (2019). 2. Id. at 2530. 3. Id. at 2539. 4. U.S. CONST. amend. IV. 5. Mitchell 139 S. Ct. at 2536 (citing NAT'L HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN., TRAFFIC SAFETY FACTS 2016 (May 2018)). 6. See Mitchell, 139 S. Ct. at 2537. 7. See infra notes 7-9 and accompanying text. 8. Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 2191 (2016) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (reasoning that reliability concerns generally limit roadside breath tests to establishing probable cause). Journal of Business & Technology Law 1