Skip to main content
Top

2020 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

10. Mitchell v. Wisconsin on Blood Alcohol Tests Under the Fourth Amendment

Author : Pamela C. Corley

Published in: SCOTUS 2019

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches by the state without a warrant. The Court has long struggled with questions of what constitutes a search and under what circumstances the acquisition of a warrant by police is an unreasonable hurdle to legitimate safety concerns of the public. Mitchell asks these questions in the context of drawing a blood alcohol test from an unconscious driver. One side argues that drivers have provided implied consent when signing up for a license in order to protect the entire public from harm, while the other side argues that such a personal bodily invasion is not allowed under the Fourth Amendment.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Footnotes
1
A plurality opinion is the controlling judgment when a majority of Justices agree on the outcome but not on the justification or reasoning; only a smaller number—the plurality—offer an opinion that explains the Court’s position, which may limit the power of the ruling.
 
2
Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. ___ (2016).
 
3
Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013).
 
4
Schmerber v. California, 383 U.S. 757 (1966).
 
5
Mitchell decision, page 10.
 
6
Ibid., page 11 (quoting McNeely, 169).
 
7
Ibid., page 8 (quoting McNeely, 149).
 
8
Ibid., page 9.
 
9
Ibid., page 13.
 
10
Ibid.
 
11
Ibid., page 15.
 
12
Ibid., page 16.
 
13
Ibid.
 
14
Mitchell Thomas concurrence, page 1.
 
15
Mitchell Sotomayor dissent, page 11.
 
16
Ibid.
 
17
Ibid., page 13.
 
18
Ibid., page 18.
 
Metadata
Title
Mitchell v. Wisconsin on Blood Alcohol Tests Under the Fourth Amendment
Author
Pamela C. Corley
Copyright Year
2020
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29956-9_10