Transportation Code · U.S. Supreme Court, 2019

Mitchell v. Wisconsin

Mitchell v. Wisconsin is a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court decision. This page summarizes key points and works through practice questions for Texas peace officer exam preparation.

Key points

  • Unconscious driver, PC of DWI
  • Four-Justice plurality (no majority opinion): exigency almost always permits a warrantless blood draw when the driver's unconsciousness prevents a breath test
  • Best practice: still obtain a warrant where feasible

Learn more about this topic

Time yourself, score your run, review missed questions with statute references — Free Practice Pass cadets get limited access.

Start Free Practice

Worked examples

Worked example 1

SCENARIO. A driver is involved in a serious crash; the driver is unconscious and cannot consent. There is probable cause of DWI. May officers obtain a blood specimen?

  1. Yes — automatically under implied consent
  2. Warrant remains the best practice; a four-Justice plurality in Mitchell v. Wisconsin said exigency almost always permits a warrantless blood draw when the driver's unconsciousness prevents a breath test, but there was no majority opinion Correct
  3. Only at the scene
  4. Never without conscious consent
Why: In Mitchell, a four-Justice plurality (Alito, J., joined by Roberts, C.J., Breyer and Kavanaugh, JJ.) concluded that when a DWI suspect's unconsciousness or stupor requires hospital treatment before police can administer a breath test, they may almost always order a warrantless blood test; Justice Thomas concurred only in the judgment. There is no majority holding, so warrants remain best practice and many Texas agencies still obtain them.
Statute: Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S. Ct. 2525 (2019)