2018-73
18-6210
Gerald P. Mitchell, Petitioner v. Wisconsin

Summary Analysis

R-73
DATE: 2019-06-27
DOCKET: 18-6210
NAME: Gerald P. Mitchell, Petitioner v. Wisconsin
WORTHY: True

OPINION: Court
   AUTHOR: Alito
   JOINING: Roberts, Breyer, Kavanaugh
   GOOD: Yes
PAGES: 17

OPINION: Concurring
   AUTHOR: Thomas
   JOINING: None
   GOOD: Yes
PAGES: 4

OPINION: Dissenting
   AUTHOR: Sotomayor
   JOINING: Ginsburg, Kagan
   GOOD: No
PAGES: 18

OPINION: Dissenting
   AUTHOR: Gorsuch
   JOINING: None
   GOOD: No
PAGES: 1


Case Commentary

In which The Government asks whether it is acceptable to Draw First Blood.

I kid, of course... or maybe there is no, of course, at all. For, how would you know that I kid? So if you don't know that I kid, then that means this is likely your first visit to my little corner of the Internet. {I hope you find your way to wherever it was you were headed, soon enough. But in the meantime, welcome. Please make yourself at home. For, my website is... um, well, it's my website.} And one should realize that I take things none too seriously here at My Website. And I am more than happy to discuss such things as really should be left to my betters... people like Judges, Lawyers, those who have actually studied law, and even those who know what all those tiny little Latin Phrases mean.

Inter Alia, You Have Been warned. So, like, this is a Disclaimer per se.

And yeah, I don't actually know if I understand those words correctly enough to use them slightly off-kilter in a non-standard sort of way that still remains intellectually pleasing.

Anyway, got it?

I do what I want.

And if you are not interesting in a bit of the public discourse disguised as doggerel, I'm sure you know where the back button on your browser is located.

Putatively, This Case is about Search Warrants... or more specifically, the lack thereof and how that relates to Unreasonable Search and Seizure. I, on the other hand, view The Case as being directly related to Qualified Immunity.

Word for word, I do not know the definition of Qualified Immunity. But I'm pretty sure it means that if a Police Officer thought they were doing their job (working within the perceived scope of their work) and their fellow Police Officers would tend to agree (with that perception) then no matter what the Police Officer did (no matter how patently illegal it was) the Officer is protected from Criminal or Civil Prosecution.

On a practical level, this means good luck successfully suing a Police Officer. Oh, sure. It happens. But tie goes to the Police Officer. And it is an uphill battle from the onset.



Thus, if you are wondering, why the media is full of stories regarding Police Misconduct, it is because:

• It makes a good story.
• Over time, Police Officers (individually or as a group) tend to become emboldened.
• Or so, I believe.

I believe Police Officers (and every other Public Sector Employee) should be at the same risk of being abused by The Legal System as everyone else.

I want the risk of prosecution to curtail their activities. Pure and Simple.

But having curtailed their activities, I don't care in the slightest how much force they bring to bear against a gun toting mass murderer.

The Case at hand involves a Drunk Driver, a driver so drunk, they subsequently passed out... about an hour or so after being taken into custody.

Lest one be sued for Dereliction of Duty (Failure to Protect the Public Welfare, and/or however you want to phrase such an offence), it has become SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) across the nation for unconscious individuals to be taken to a hospital (and/or for an ambulance to be called on their behalf, which in many cases amounts to the same thing). And once admitted, it is, once again, SOP (by which I mean Standard Operating Procedure and not Sales Order Pending, Some Old Person, or any other phrase which starts with an S, is followed by an an O, and ends with a P) to draw blood... especially if the individual in question is suspected of suffering from Alcohol Poisoning, Chemical Overdose, or the like.

Thus, I have no problem with The Powers That Be drawing blood from an unconscious individual and using said blood to prosecute a Drunk Driving Claim.



BUT (and this is a very important BUT), drawing blood is akin to Assault, Battery, or some such nonsense. And I have no problem prosecuting anyone (and I mean, anyone) involved (so, Police Officers, Nurses, Hospital Administrators, and so on) should the blood draw fail to indicate a crime... and it came to pass that drawing blood in the situation at hand was not SOP: i.e. Sensible Or Practical.



Further, I would allow Evidence to validate ANY Search... however seemingly unreasonable, because in point of fact, the 20/20 facts in hindsight have proved the search was indeed reasonable... or at least, successful.



But do you want to take the chance?

How sure are you?

Because if you are wrong, you might be looking at Criminal Prosecution.



That's where Search Warrants come in. A Police Officer pleads their case (or states the evidence) and a Magistrate makes a Pre-emptive Ruling shielding the Police Officer from Prosecution or Accusations of Wrongful Conduct... or at least, this is as I would have it.

As it stands, the construction is more along the lines of a Magistrate condones a search, which in turn allows any evidence to be used in a Court of Law... with any Police Officer Conduct presumed to be Honourable... unless proved to the contrary by an overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, which can be a sort of difficult hurdle to surmount on account of Qualified Immunity, as previously discussed.



Unfortunately, I have no reason (none whatsoever) to believe Search Warrants are hard to come by.

If a Police Officer is willing to swear that a driver is acting drunk (slurred speech, difficulty standing, whatever), then I doubt there are very many judges who would deny the warrant.

Hence, warrants (in many contexts) seem to be window dressing.

'What do you mean why do I think he is drunk. I think he is drunk, because he is drunk.'

'And the symptoms of this drunkenness are?'

'Slurred speech, to start.'

'Perhaps, he has a speech impediment or gets nervous talking to a would be vampire.'

'What?'

'Well, you want to draw blood, right?'

'Yeah.'

'So, you're either a vampire or a ghoul or you're going to have to do a lot better in your diagnosis. How old did you say this kid was?'

'Twenty, so it's under-age drinking, as well.'

'Eh, what that really means is that he is a member of the Millennial Generation. And if he's anything like my grandson, he's prone to act all loosey-goosey, have a complete inability to stand at attention, much less at ease, and basically he eats,' as in, he swallows, 'everything he says to the point of a complete lack of understanding. I mean, my grandson presents himself like a complete retard to me, but apparently he's pulling Straight A's and is Captain of the Basketball Team. So, it's a whole new ballgame out there.'

'You're not going to give me this warrant, are you?'

'Not a chance. Word gets around I issued a Search Warrant and I'll never get another date from one of those sexy coeds, as long as I live.'

In This Case (This Supreme Court Case), the perp gave consent (or was not with it enough to deny consent) and voluntarily blew into a Breath Analyser. I am happy to attach a 'voluntary' qualifier to the Breath Test without knowing any details, as I am led to believe the test itself requires a certain degree of cooperation in order to obtain accurate results: i.e. one must blow evenly into a nozzle and not hold one's breath, gasp sporadically, or otherwise muck about.

Subsequent to the Breath Test (and within an hour or so), the perp passed out. Whereupon, he was rushed to a hospital and blood was drawn.



Both the Breath Test and Blood Draw showed the perp was as guilty as sin and smashed (a technical term meaning inebriated) out of his mind.



Thus, the Breath Test was voluntary and (in my opinion) provided Reasonable Cause for a follow up Blood Test.



As I've outlined it (and as The Court analyses it), the reason for which Certiorari was originally granted has been handily sidestepped, which is why Gorsuch's Opinion is among the most relevant... not that I care.



And I think I have covered it. All that is left to do is post a few choice words from The Justices (various, out of order, and with minor edits) and I will be on my way.

We have held that forcing drunk-driving suspects to undergo a blood test does not violate their constitutional right against self-incrimination.

From 1982 to 2016, alcohol-related accidents took roughly 10,000 to 20,000 lives in this Nation every single year. See National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. (NHTSA), Traffic Safety Facts 2016, p. 40 (May 2018). In the best years, that would add up to more than one fatality per hour.

It is a biological certainty that alcohol dissipates from the bloodstream at a rate of 0.01 percent to 0.025 percent per hour.

The Court has consistently held that police officers may perform searches without a warrant when destruction of evidence is a risk.

Oh, one final thing to note, the driver tried (unsuccessfully, I might add) to suppress The Blood Draw (i.e. not allow it into evidence). But since denying a Blood Draw is (in the jurisdiction at issue, at least) reason enough for a suspension of one's license, I fail to see what the fuss is about... you know, in this particular case.

Ah, but then I am forgetting about any monetary damages, forced counselling, community service, and the like. So, never mind. A Suspended License is much better than a DWI Conviction.

Meaning, if one thinks they are drunk, they are likely much better off refusing any sobriety test.