Cases of unreasonable searches made by the representatives of the law entail serious litigation since the violation of the Fourth Amendment on the right to uninterested and warranted data collection might be proven. As an example for analysis, the case Mitchell v. Wisconsin (2019) will be reviewed. The critical problem raised by the plaintiff was that his blood test was taken from him unconsciously when a policeman arrested him for suspicion of drunk driving. As a result, a complaint was filed with the Supreme Court demanding that the decision on punishment be canceled due to the lack of personal consent of the plaintiff to donate blood for testing.
The case was examined in the context of the plaintiff’s complaint, who claimed that his rights were violated when his blood was taken without his consent. However, under Wisconsin law, any suspicion of drunk driving does not require a warrant to complete the test if a suspect is about is unconscious. The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint and accused him of violating two laws relating to drunk driving.
Justice Sotomayor expressed dissent regarding the verdict of the panel of judges in relation to the decision to charge the plaintiff. In his opinion, in order to ensure that the Fourth Amendment is not violated, a representative of the law, in particular, an employee of law enforcement agencies, is to obtain a warrant for conducting tests. Moreover, as he adds, in the present case, the police officer had time to receive the relevant papers, which is an additional justification for the violation of the detention procedure. Nevertheless, I agree with the majority opinion because, despite the suspect’s unconsciousness, the officer had enough authority and qualifications to accuse the plaintiff of an offense. The tests performed in accordance with the state law proved Mr. Mitchell to be guilty, which is the crucial reason for sentencing.
References
Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 588/2 U.S. (2019).