Wisconsin police can legally draw blood from unconscious drunken drivers without a warrant, the state Supreme Court ruled this week.
The justices ruled 5-2 that drivers automatically consent to a blood draw when they drive on Wisconsin roads.
If drivers drink themselves into unconsciousness, they forfeit any opportunity to withdraw that consent, Chief Justice Patience Roggensack wrote for the majority.
The ruling stems from a case involving Gerald Mitchell, who was arrested for drunken driving in Sheboygan County in 2013. Mitchell passed out after he was arrested. Police took him to a hospital for a blood draw. An officer told him he could refuse the draw, but Mitchell was still unconscious and couldn't respond. The officer directed hospital staff to draw his blood without a warrant.
An analysis showed his blood alcohol content was 0.22 percent, well above the 0.08 percent legal limit for driving.
Mitchell argued the draw violated his constitutional rights to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.
States across the country have been grappling with whether police need warrants to draw blood from unconscious drunken drivers.
The Pennsylvania and Arizona supreme courts both ruled last year that police need warrants before they can take blood from unconscious drivers. Body-camera video of officers hand-cuffing Utah nurse Alex Wubbels when she refused to allow police to draw blood from an unconscious car crash victim without a warrant last year drew widespread outrage.
Wisconsin's Supreme Court ruled last year that police can take blood from unconscious drivers without a warrant in urgent situations where a delay could lead to the destruction of evidence.
An appellate court sent Mitchell's case to the Supreme Court, saying the justices should clarify if police need warrants in non-urgent situations.
Roggensack said under Wisconsin law drivers automatically consent to blood draws when they get behind the wheel. They can withdraw consent but they will suffer civil penalties if they do so, including license revocation.
She pointed to other statutes that state someone who is unconscious or otherwise incapable of withdrawing consent is presumed to not have withdrawn it. Mitchell's self-induced unconsciousness doesn't render those statutes constitutionally unreasonable.
"Through drinking to the point of unconsciousness, Mitchell forfeited all opportunity ... to withdraw his consent previously given," Roggensack wrote.
Ann Walsh Bradley and Shirley Abrahamson, the court's two liberal-leaning justices, dissented.
Bradley wrote that the majority is creating an exception to constitutionally mandated warrant requirements and that there's no evidence in Mitchell's case that justifies departing from those requirements. Implied consent shouldn't override constitutional protections and Mitchell's blood test results should be suppressed, she concluded.