Wisconsin police can legally draw blood from unconscious drunk drivers without a warrant

The state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

www.washingtonpost.com... y.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dcd56d1395db

northernpublicradio.org...

So, I live in drunkconsin, and yes there are tons of drunk drivers. It is terrifying. There are people that are on their 7th OWI (operating while intoxicated) and still driving. The League of Taverns rule this state. That being said, there is something really creepy and wrong and un-American! with this ruling.
First they take your blood, then what else. It is a very slippery slope.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Slippery slope.

I know here in Ontario if you have been convicted once, they can draw as much blood from you as they want if it involves a motor vehicle.
But, then again. Where will it stop?

Either way this involves criminal activity. And if you're suspected of drinking and driving it might be hours, days, until you can give blood or take an accurate breath sample and they might get away with it.
It raises the question, where will it stop?

Sometimes drinkers might have low blood volume from drinking alcohol. Drawing blood can result in lack of blood to the brain and passing out by orthostatic hypotension. I think that these people should be made aware that a person can die from that situation and the cops could be liable if someone gets brain damage or dies.

Well, if a person is unconscious, bloodwork could be the difference between them living or dying. The cops have no way of knowing if they just drank too much or OD'ed on something.

a reply to: rickymouse

If they are in hospital care they are most likely hooked up to an IV full of fluids and supplements, they aren't going to be suffering at all.

Not happy at all to see the invasive threat to privacy actions like these create. Not to mention the erosion of the liberty in the name of security

Where does it end? All in the name of theoretically reducing DUI offenders? Reminds me of the seatbelt con: "This only applies to children." "It applies to everyone, but it isn't a primary offense." "It is a primary offense"

Look also to the radical anti-gun laws that were passed in the 20th century. From the NFA to the GCA, the slippery slope still unfairly gives richer Americans access to better instruments of defense.

The slippery slope reality isn't just an argument, it is a historical fact

a reply to: JBurns

Well, it sounds far fetched but what I see this leading to, is oh we need everyone's DNA because that's how we'll find serial killers and murders etc.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Defending the rights of someone who is passed out overdosed is a slippery slope.

The hospital has to have the right to run tests. I can't think of any instance where an unresponsive person is required to respond before medical treatment. Part of that treatment will reveal what if any toxins are in the blood stream. Why would those test results not be passed on to the authorities?

If you're passed out behind the wheel I don't think we are infringing on any 4th amendment rights on this one. Getting a warrant is a waste of time and money in this instance. No judge would ever deny a warrent in these cases.

a reply to: JBurns

Except seat belts were proven time and time again to save lives, hence the laws that followed. Same with air bags.

You seem to forget you are comparing guns, to vehicles here.
One, most people use for leisure or sport, and the other majority of the population uses literally EVERYDAY to survive.

When you add alcohol to the mix, both are deadly, but which one is more likely to cause harm than the other?

a reply to: JAGStorm


My son didn't start drinking liquor until he went away to college in Wisconsin. A Christian college. duh!

originally posted by: strongfp
One, most people use for leisure or sport, and the other majority of the population uses literally EVERYDAY to survive.

When you add alcohol to the mix, both are deadly, but which one is more likely to cause harm than the other?

Back a long time ago I was stationed at Fort Hood, TX before there was any 'real' DUI enforcement. Soldiers would get drunk as skunks, sure, but they were allowed to drive on the shoulder of the road with their hazard lights flashing as the returned to the post.

If you drove on the 'hard ball', you were going to jail. No matter how drunk anyone got, hardly anyone forgot that and they stayed on the shoulder with their flashers running.

We need to bring back such common sense.

ETA - I liked your post BTW

The ruling stems from a case involving Gerald Mitchell, who was arrested for drunken driving in Sheboygan County in 2013. Mitchell passed out after his arrest. Police took him to a hospital for a blood draw. An officer told him he could refuse, but Mitchell was still unconscious and couldn't respond. The officer directed hospital staff to draw his blood without a warrant.

I don't have any respect for someone passed out behind the wheel. If they're going to do that, they should probably put something visible on their person that states they refuse blood tests... Would make a good t-shirt.

How do unconscious people drive?

.... very badly I'd imagine.

The justices ruled 5-2 that drivers automatically consent to a blood draw when they drive on Wisconsin roads.

does this just apply to citizens of Wisconsin or does anyone driving through the state lose their right to privacy?

originally posted by: rickymouse
Sometimes drinkers might have low blood volume from drinking alcohol. Drawing blood can result in lack of blood to the brain and passing out by orthostatic hypotension. I think that these people should be made aware that a person can die from that situation and the cops could be liable if someone gets brain damage or dies.

As a secondary issue, what if the cop is clumsy and there is air in the needle? That's pretty much an instant death sentence. Of course, maybe that's the plan.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: DanDanDat
How do unconscious people drive?

.... very badly I'd imagine.

The justices ruled 5-2 that drivers automatically consent to a blood draw when they drive on Wisconsin roads.

does this just apply to citizens of Wisconsin or does anyone driving through the state lose their right to privacy?

Find out where those judges live. When you see them pull out of their driveway, pull them over at gunpoint and take a pint.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Fellow 'Sconsinite. Ashamed to say it but I got tagged for a DUI and they took me straight to the hospital for a blood draw. I did NOT consent and the cop told me if I didn't that they'd restrain me and take it anyway.
I asked my lawyer about it and seems that at the time it wasn't challenged but who wants to go in for over a year rather than just pleading out?
Also in Wisco most people who plead guilty and return for sentencing have time to get affairs in order and must return to the Court at a later date in order to be transported (if out on bail, ofc) - not so for filthy drunks! No ho ho, once sentenced, you get the cuffs slapped on you and straight to processing.
You also MUST, after initial hearing, report to WCS (Wisconsin Community Services) so you can get the paperwork for your assessment, get on a schedule for regular breathalyzer/random piss tests, and take your baseline piss test. You MUST report for these appointments that usually take about 1/2 hour at your appointed times. Also AA is strongly encouraged.
You are assumed guilty and put in a pretrial program but other criminals don't have to adhere to these kinds of intrusions once out on bail? Really?
I don't even drive here anymore (Milwaukee) because there are too many OTHER fool drivers out there in stolen cars driving recklessly, one drink and your SOL if someone T-bones you. Because if you have any alcohol in your system you are immediately at fault (iirc). At least statistically that counts as an "alcohol-related incident" per MADD. Hell you can be tipsy walking down a sidewalk and someone hits you - alcohol-related

Edit: make BAC 0.00. Or put some sort of restrictor plate on speeders! More deadly that drunk drivers! DUI requires people to avail themselves of an Interlock device so why not a restraint on how fast a speeders' car can go???
I really want an answer as to why either of the above are not feasible

a reply to: JAGStorm

Sounds kind of Cheesy.
As well as legally questionable.
S&F

wrong....unless you are seriously hurt or ill...the hospital will only take sure you are not going to immediately die....then sign you off as medically clear to be processed......in a lot of ER's....the staff treat the arrested like scum.

While I realize drunk driving is a legitimate issue.....so is texting and driving.....
when will the "special treatment" for DUI's end? Instant execution on the spot? (I know, I am being dramatic)....but when the penalties for having two beers and driving are equal and sometimes worse than actually assaulting someone.....I think it is a problem.......there HAS to be a better way.......obviously the draconian DUI laws of this country haven't stopped drunk driving.....but the indoctrination has worked really well to treat someone who made a judgement in error, (to some people, 2 drinks isn't "excessive" and doesn't cause any "symptoms") as if they are murderers and the lowest POS on the planet.

I am sorry, but a cop should NOT be poking needles into the arms of unconscious patients.....especially without a warrant.....why does the constitution seem to not apply to DUI (and drug arrests too) ask yourself this.......try getting evidence from a murder without a warrant.......

" a reply to: strongfp

the hospital can run tests and they ARE bound by HIPPA laws.....they don't have to give those results to the cops.....especially without a warrant.....thus saving the patient....blood tests can be done without giving the results to LEO.....a reply to: Isurrender73

a reply to: JAGStorm

It will be ruled unconstitutional - as it amounts to 'incriminating one's self'.