In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Birchfield v. North Dakota on the issue of warrant requirements for tests of apparently intoxicated drivers. See Kym's posts here and here. Today the high court granted certiorari to review a decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Mitchell v. Wisconsin, No. 18-6210. From the state court decision:
¶2 Gerald Mitchell was convicted of operating while intoxicated and with a prohibited alcohol concentration, based on the test of blood drawn without a warrant while he was unconscious, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 343.305(3)(b) (2013-14). Mitchell contends that the blood draw was a search conducted in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.¶3 We conclude that Mitchell voluntarily consented to a blood draw by his conduct of driving on Wisconsin's roads and drinking to a point evidencing probable cause of intoxication. Further, through drinking to the point of unconsciousness, Mitchell forfeited all opportunity, including the statutory opportunity under Wis. Stat. § 343.305(4), to withdraw his consent previously given; and therefore, § 343.305(3)(b) applied, which under the totality of circumstances herein presented reasonably permitted drawing Mitchell's blood. Accordingly, we affirm Mitchell's convictions.
The case will likely be argued on the April calendar and decided near the end of the term in June or thereabouts.
The Court also took up two more cases under the problematic federal law on crime and guns, 18 U.S.C. §924. Quarles v. United States, No. 17-778 dives again into what is "burglary" for sentencing recidivist criminals, given the varying definitions under which a defendant may have been convicted of a prior burglary in state court. Does it matter whether the defendant decided to steal something before or after he broke into the building?
Rehaif v. United States, No. 17-9560 concerns the mental state of a defendant accused of violating the prohibition on possession of a firearm by an illegal alien. What does it mean to "knowingly" violate this law? Must the defendant only know he possesses a gun or must he also know he is illegal?
In addition to the criminal cases, the Court took up a crime-related civil case, McDonough v. Smith, No. 18-485. The case concerns the statute of limitations for civil rights suits under 42 U.S.C. §1983 based on fabrication of evidence.
RE: McDonough v. Smith, one wonders what the contours of legitimate self-defense (or defense of others) are in the situation where a prosecutor fabricates evidence against a person.