The IRL Supreme Court recently passed a ruling in a 5-4
decision affirming the drunk-driving conviction of Gerald Mitchell, who was administered a warrantless blood test while he was unconscious.
The bill that is currently on the floor of the Senate reaffirms a reasonable expectation of privacy of one of the most fundamental rights people hold in a free society. Accordingly,
Section §1.8 of our Constitution prohibits warrantless searches, with few exceptions. The police in the SCOTUS case cited violated that right when they drew Mr. Mitchell's blood as he was unconscious, in order to test his blood alcohol level in the event of a drunk-driving arrest. The state has attempted to excuse the officers' actions by citing an implied-consent statute, which provides that simply driving on state roads constitutes consent to such searches.
While the right to privacy is not absolute and police are allowed to search for evidence of a crime, law enforcement must follow procedures that comport with our Constitution. Before police conduct a search, in instances where the affected party cannot consent, the evidence should be judged by a neutral and detached magistrate, instead of being judged by the officer present at the scene of the alleged crime. Our Constitution contains a simple requirement for law enforcement that is an effective bulwark against unreasonable searches, and that requirement is to get a warrant.
Unfortunately for Mr. Mitchell, he was unconscious during the drawing of his blood and therefore could not give his affirmative consent to be subject to a blood test, which is standard procedure for individuals who are accused of driving while intoxicated. By affirming the drunk-driving conviction of Mr. Mitchell, the US Supreme Court gave police officers the green light to freely collect evidence which can normally only be obtained via freely-given consent - that evidence, of course, being one's bodily fluids.
With this, I concur with the Cato Institute, which joined the Rutherford Institution in filing an amicus brief in support of Mr. Mitchell's petition,
that unconscious people simply cannot consent to anything, especially police searches, and that inspecting a coal mine for safety compliance - a justified exception to warrantless searches - is not the same as searching a driver's blood in an attempt to convict him of a DUI.As such, I thank Senator Devout Centrist for introducing this bill on my behalf, and I urge the Senate to pass this bill for the fair and equal application of the law as prescribed by our Bill of Rights.
