Mitchell v. Wisconsin Oral Argument
2019-06-28T11:09:26-04:00https://ximage.c-spanvideo.org/eyJidWNrZXQiOiJwaWN0dXJlcy5jLXNwYW52aWRlby5vcmciLCJrZXkiOiJGaWxlc1wvY2I0XC8yMDE5MDUwMjE4MjYzMzAwMV9oZC5qcGciLCJlZGl0cyI6eyJyZXNpemUiOnsiZml0IjoiY292ZXIiLCJoZWlnaHQiOjUwNn19fQ==The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Mitchell v. Wisconsin, a case concerning Wisconsin’s implied consent law allowing police to obtain a blood draw from an unconscious driver without consent or a warrant. In May 2013, the petitioner, Gerald Mitchell, was arrested for allegedly driving drunk. At the direction of the police officer, Mr. Mitchell’s blood was drawn while he was unconscious. His legal team argues that this draw violated his Fourth Amendment rights because there was no warrant and no exigent circumstances. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled against Mr. Mitchell, saying the blood draw was lawful. More than 25 other states have similar laws to Wisconsin.
On June 27, 2019, the court ruled 5-4 that police officers can obtain a blood draw without a warrant from an unconscious driver who is suspected of driving under the influence.
On June 27, 2019, the court ruled 5-4 that police officers can obtain a blood draw without a warrant from an unconscious driver who is suspected of driving under the influence.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Mitchell v. Wisconsin, a case concerning Wisconsin’s implied consent law allowing police to obtain … read more
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Mitchell v. Wisconsin, a case concerning Wisconsin’s implied consent law allowing police to obtain a blood draw from an unconscious driver without consent or a warrant. In May 2013, the petitioner, Gerald Mitchell, was arrested for allegedly driving drunk. At the direction of the police officer, Mr. Mitchell’s blood was drawn while he was unconscious. His legal team argues that this draw violated his Fourth Amendment rights because there was no warrant and no exigent circumstances. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled against Mr. Mitchell, saying the blood draw was lawful. More than 25 other states have similar laws to Wisconsin.
On June 27, 2019, the court ruled 5-4 that police officers can obtain a blood draw without a warrant from an unconscious driver who is suspected of driving under the influence. close
People in this video
- Samuel A. Alito Jr. Associate Justice U.S. Supreme Court
- Stephen G. Breyer Associate Justice U.S. Supreme Court
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg Associate Justice U.S. Supreme Court
- Neil Gorsuch Associate Justice U.S. Supreme Court
-
Andrew Hinkel Attorney -
- Elena Kagan Associate Justice U.S. Supreme Court
- Brett M. Kavanaugh Associate Justice U.S. Supreme Court
- John G. Roberts Jr. Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court
- Sonia Sotomayor Associate Justice U.S. Supreme Court
Hosting Organization
Purchase a Download
Mitchell v. Wisconsin Oral Argument
-
MP4 video - Standard
- Price:
- $6.99
-
MP3 audio - Standard
- Price:
- $0.99
Related Video
-
Rahaif v. United States Oral Argument
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Rehaif v. United States, a case on whether a non-citizen in the U.S. can be pro…
-
Unites States v. Davis Oral Argument
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Davis. The case concerns whether using a weapon while committi…
-
Iancu v. Brunetti Oral Argument
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Iancu v. Brunetti. The case concerns trademark law and the Lanham Act, which al…
-
American Legion v. American Humanist Association Oral Argument
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in two consolidated cases, American Legion v. American Humanist Association and Ma…
User Created Clips from This Video
-
- 2 minutes
- 41 views
-
- 30 seconds
- 9 views