Humanities
CRJ 330 University of Miami Michael v Wisconsin Landmark Case Discussion

crj 330

University of Miami

CRJ

Question Description

I need an explanation for this Law question to help me study.

In your post:(a) Identify the case you’ve selected and explain why you’ve selected the case you have. (1 paragraph); and (b) Link to (or attach as a pdf) one article that addresses an aspect of the case you have selected. This can be from a periodical or a journal/law review. With the link (or pdf attachment), summarize how the article may be helpful (or contribute to) completion of your Final Research Paper. Please be sure this link/article is not just a summary, blog, or informational page about the case.

The prompt that I have chosen to write about is Michael V Wisconsin.

The article that you choose must be referenced in APA format as well as the paper in APA format

This assignment should be 1-2 paragraphs

Unformatted Attachment Preview

CRJ 330 Law and Courts Spring 2020 Final Research Paper (Checkpoint Assignment) For your research paper, please select a U.S. Supreme Court decision (one from the alternatives below) and conduct a thorough analysis of the Court’s decision. In doing so, please discuss the facts of the case, explain where the case originated, and track its development through the lower courts to the U.S. Supreme Court (procedural history). Identify and discuss the issue(s) presented in the case and the court’s ruling on these issues (holding). Likewise, offer a lengthy analysis of the Court’s reasoning/rationale for this ruling (and dissenting opinions, if any) – paying particular attention to the influence of public policy (or public opinion). Lastly, and arguably most important, analyze the social or political ramifications of the Court’s decision (either real or hypothetical). Please select one of the case alternatives below. “An individual was pulled over and given a breathalyzer, which showed his blood alcohol content (BAC) was three times the legal limit in Wisconsin. The officer drove him to the police station to conduct a more reliable test, but Mitchell was too "lethargic" to do the test by that point, so the officer took him to the hospital to do a blood test there, which was legal under state law. He sued on the grounds that the officer violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches.” Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 2019 “An artist sued the federal government on grounds that it violated his First Amendment rights by refusing to register the trademark for his clothing line, FUCT.” Iancu v. Brunetti, 2019 “The government's power to detain noncitizens with criminal records during deportation proceedings.” Nielsen v. Preap, 2019 Please comply with all APA formatting/citation guidelines. This means that you will include in-text citations and a references page as well as title page, etc. The paper should be typed, double-spaced, and with 1 inch margins throughout. This is an approximately 10-12 page paper. Submit to Canvas by 11:59pm on Sunday, May 3. No late submissions will be accepted. See below for a general idea of how you will be assessed with respect to the content of your paper. Enjoy! Remember: I am here to support you. Please contact me if you run in to a roadblock. Checkpoint #4: CRJ 330 Law and the Courts – shared with Political Science and Liberal Arts Critical Assignment Rubric Excellent Above Average Average Below Average Unacceptable Track development and procedure of case SLO 1.4, SLO 1.5 Student rigorously tracks development and procedure of the case Student tracks development and procedure of the case in a significant manner Student tracks development and procedure of the case but omits one or two significant details Student tracks the development and procedure of the case in a superficial manner Student does not track development and procedure of the case Identify facts pertinent to issue(s) of the case SLO 1.4 Student rigorously identifies facts pertinent to issue(s) of the case Student identifies facts pertinent to issue(s) of the case Student identifies most facts pertinent to issue(s) of the case Student identifies some facts pertinent to issue(s) in the case Student does not identify facts or issue(s) in the case Explain the decision and the court’s rationale SLO 1.4, SLO 4.2 Student rigorously explains the decision and Court’s rationale Student explains the decision and Court’s rationale in a significant manner Student explains the decision and Court’s rationale, but omits one or two significant details Student explains the decision and Court’s rationale in a superficial manner Student does not explain the decision and Court’s rationale Analyze social and political ramifications of decision SLO 1.5, SLO 4.2, SLO 5.2 Student rigorously analyzes the social and political ramifications of the decision Student analyzes the social and political ramifications of the decision in a significant manner Student analyzes the social and political ramifications of the but omits one or two significant details Student analyzes the social and political ramifications of the decision in a superficial manner Student does not analyze social and political ramifications of the decision (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2018 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus MITCHELL v. WISCONSIN CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN No. 18–6210. Argued April 23, 2019—Decided June 27, 2019 Petitioner Gerald Mitchell was arrested for operating a vehicle while intoxicated after a preliminary breath test registered a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) that was triple Wisconsin’s legal limit for driving. As is standard practice, the arresting officer drove Mitchell to a police station for a more reliable breath test using evidence-grade equipment. By the time Mitchell reached the station, he was too lethargic for a breath test, so the officer drove him to a nearby hospital for a blood test. Mitchell was unconscious by the time he arrived at the hospital, but his blood was drawn anyway under a state law that presumes that a person incapable of withdrawing implied consent to BAC testing has not done so. The blood analysis showed Mitchell’s BAC to be above the legal limit, and he was charged with violating two drunk-driving laws. Mitchell moved to suppress the results of the blood test on the ground that it violated his Fourth Amendment right against “unreasonable searches” because it was conducted without a warrant. The trial court denied the motion, and Mitchell was convicted. On certification from the intermediate appellate court, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the lawfulness of Mitchell’s blood test. Held: The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded. 2018 WI 84, 383 Wis. 2d 192, 914 N. W. 2d 151, vacated and remanded. JUSTICE ALITO, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE BREYER, and JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concluded that when a driver is unconscious and cannot be given a breath test, the exigent-circumstances doctrine generally permits a blood test without a warrant. Pp. 5–17. (a) BAC tests are Fourth Amendment searches. See Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U. S. ___, ___. A warrant is normally required for a lawful search, but there are well-defined exceptions to this rule, including the “exigent circumstances” exception, which allows warrant- 2 MITCHELL v. WISCONSIN Syllabus less searches “to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.” Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U. S. 141, 149. In McNeely, this Court held that the fleeting nature of blood-alcohol evidence alone was not enough to bring BAC testing within the exigency exception. Id., at 156. But in Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, the dissipation of BAC did justify a blood test of a drunk driver whose accident gave police other pressing duties, for then the further delay caused by a warrant application would indeed have threatened the destruction of evidence. Like Schmerber, unconscious-driver cases will involve a heightened degree of urgency for several reasons. And when the driver’s stupor or unconsciousness deprives officials of a reasonable opportunity to administer a breath test using evidence-grade equipment, a blood test will be essential for achieving the goals of BAC testing. Pp. 5–7. (b) Under the exigent circumstances exception, a warrantless search is allowed when “ ‘there is compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant.’ ” McNeely, 569 U. S., at 149. Pp. 7– 16. (1) There is clearly a “compelling need” for a blood test of drunkdriving suspects whose condition deprives officials of a reasonable opportunity to conduct a breath test. First, highway safety is a vital public interest—a “compelling” and “paramount” interest, Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U. S. 1, 17–18. Second, when it comes to promoting that interest, federal and state lawmakers have long been convinced that legal limits on a driver’s BAC make a big difference. And there is good reason to think that such laws have worked. Birchfield, 579 U. S., at ___. Third, enforcing BAC limits obviously requires a test that is accurate enough to stand up in court. Id., at ___. And such testing must be prompt because it is “a biological certainty” that “[a]lcohol dissipates from the bloodstream,” “literally disappearing by the minute.” McNeely, 569 U. S., at 169 (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring). Finally, when a breath test is unavailable to promote the interests served by legal BAC limits, “a blood draw becomes necessary.” Id., at 170. Pp. 9–12. (2) Schmerber demonstrates that an exigency exists when (1) BAC evidence is dissipating and (2) some other factor creates pressing health, safety, or law enforcement needs that would take priority over a warrant application. Because both conditions are met when a drunk-driving suspect is unconscious, Schmerber controls. A driver’s unconsciousness does not just create pressing needs; it is itself a medical emergency. In such a case, as in Schmerber, an officer could “reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency.” 384 U. S., at 771. And in many unconscious-driver cases, the exigency will be especially acute. A driver so drunk as to lose con- Cite as: 588 U. S. ____ (2019) 3 Syllabus sciousness is quite likely to crash, giving officers a slew of urgent tasks beyond that of securing medical care for the suspect—tasks that would require them to put off applying for a warrant. The time needed to secure a warrant may have shrunk over the years, but it has not disappeared; and forcing police to put off other urgent tasks for even a relatively short period of time may have terrible collateral costs. Pp. 12–16. (c) On remand, Mitchell may attempt to show that his was an unusual case, in which his blood would not have been drawn had police not been seeking BAC information and police could not have reasonably judged that a warrant application would interfere with other pressing needs or duties. Pp. 16–17. JUSTICE THOMAS would apply a per se rule, under which the natural metabolization of alcohol in the blood stream “creates an exigency once police have probable cause to believe the driver is drunk,” regardless of whether the driver is conscious. Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U. S. 141, 178 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Pp. 1–4. ALITO, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and BREYER and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG and KAGAN, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Cite as: 588 U. S. ____ (2019) 1 Opinion of ALITO, J. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash­ ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 18–6210 _________________ GERALD P. MITCHELL, PETITIONER v. WISCONSIN ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN [June 27, 2019] JUSTICE ALITO announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE BREYER, and JUSTICE KAVANAUGH join. In this case, we return to a topic that we have addressed twice in recent years: the circumstances under which a police officer may administer a warrantless blood alcohol concentration (BAC) test to a motorist who appears to have been driving under the influence of alcohol. We have previously addressed what officers may do in two broad categories of cases. First, an officer may conduct a BAC test if the facts of a particular case bring it within the exigent­circumstances exception to the Fourth Amend­ ment’s general requirement of a warrant. Second, if an officer has probable cause to arrest a motorist for drunk driving, the officer may conduct a breath test (but not a blood test) under the rule allowing warrantless searches of a person incident to arrest. Today, we consider what police officers may do in a narrow but important category of cases: those in which the driver is unconscious and therefore cannot be given a breath test. In such cases, we hold, the exigent­ circumstances rule almost always permits a blood test 2 MITCHELL v. WISCONSIN Opinion of ALITO, J. without a warrant. When a breath test is impossible, enforcement of the drunk­driving laws depends upon the administration of a blood test. And when a police officer encounters an unconscious driver, it is very likely that the driver would be taken to an emergency room and that his blood would be drawn for diagnostic purposes even if the police were not seeking BAC information. In addition, police officers most frequently come upon unconscious drivers when they report to the scene of an accident, and under those circumstances, the officers’ many responsibili­ ties—such as attending to other injured drivers or passen­ gers and preventing further accidents—may be incompati­ ble with the procedures that would be required to obtain a warrant. Thus, when a driver is unconscious, the general rule is that a warrant is not needed. I A In Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U. S. ___ (2016), we recounted the country’s efforts over the years to address the terrible problem of drunk driving. Today, “all States have laws that prohibit motorists from driving with a [BAC] that exceeds a specified level.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 2). And to help enforce BAC limits, every State has passed what are popularly called implied­consent laws. Ibid. As “a condition of the privilege of ” using the public roads, these laws require that drivers submit to BAC testing “when there is sufficient reason to believe they are violating the State’s drunk­driving laws.” Id., at ___, ___ (slip op., at 2, 6). Wisconsin’s implied­consent law is much like those of the other 49 States and the District of Columbia. It deems drivers to have consented to breath or blood tests if an officer has reason to believe they have committed one of Cite as: 588 U. S. ____ (2019) 3 Opinion of ALITO, J. several drug­ or alcohol­related offenses.1 See Wis. Stat. §§343.305(2), (3). Officers seeking to conduct a BAC test must read aloud a statement declaring their intent to administer the test and advising drivers of their options and the implications of their choice. §343.305(4). If a driver’s BAC level proves too high, his license will be suspended; but if he refuses testing, his license will be revoked and his refusal may be used against him in court. See ibid. No test will be administered if a driver refuses— or, as the State would put it, “withdraws” his statutorily presumed consent. But “[a] person who is unconscious or otherwise not capable of withdrawing consent is presumed not to have” withdrawn it. §343.305(3)(b). See also §§343.305(3)(ar)1–2. More than half the States have provisions like this one regarding unconscious drivers. B The sequence of events that gave rise to this case began when Officer Alexander Jaeger of the Sheboygan Police Department received a report that petitioner Gerald Mitchell, appearing to be very drunk, had climbed into a van and driven off. Jaeger soon found Mitchell wandering near a lake. Stumbling and slurring his words, Mitchell could hardly stand without the support of two officers. Jaeger judged a field sobriety test hopeless, if not danger­ ous, and gave Mitchell a preliminary breath test. It regis­ tered a BAC level of 0.24%, triple the legal limit for driv­ ing in Wisconsin. Jaeger arrested Mitchell for operating a —————— 1 Wisconsin also authorizes BAC testing of drivers involved in acci­ dents that cause significant bodily harm, with or without probable cause of drunk driving. See Wis. Stat. §343.305(3)2 (2016). We do not address those provisions. And while Wisconsin’s and other implied­ consent laws permit urine tests, those tests are less common, see Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U. S. ___, ___, n. 1 (2016) (slip op., at 6, n. 1), and we do not consider them here. 4 MITCHELL v. WISCONSIN Opinion of ALITO, J. vehicle while intoxicated and, as is standard practice, drove him to a police station for a more reliable breath test using better equipment. On the way, Mitchell’s condition continued to deterio­ rate—so much so that by the time the squad car had reached the station, he was too lethargic even for a breath test. Jaeger therefore drove Mitchell to a nearby hospital for a blood test; Mitchell lost consciousness on the ride over and had to be wheeled in. Even so, Jaeger read aloud to a slumped Mitchell the standard statement giving drivers a chance to refuse BAC testing. Hearing no re­ sponse, Jaeger asked hospital staff to draw a blood sam­ ple. Mitchell remained unconscious while the sample was taken, and analysis of his blood showed that his BAC, about 90 minutes after his arrest, was 0.222%. Mitchell was charged with violating two related drunk­ driving provisions. See §§346.63(1)(a), (b). He moved to suppress the results of the blood test on the ground that it violated his Fourth Amendment right against “unreason­ able searches” because it was conducted without a warrant. Wisconsin chose to rest its response on the notion that its implied­consent law (together with Mitchell’s free choice to drive on its highways) rendered the blood test a consensual one, thus curing any Fourth Amendment problem. In the end, the trial court denied Mitchell’s motion to suppress, and a jury found him guilty of the charged offenses. The intermediate appellate court certified two questions to the Wisconsin Supreme Court: first, whether compliance with the State’s implied­consent law was sufficient to show that Mitchell’s test was consistent with the Fourth Amendment and, second, whether a warrantless blood draw from an unconscious person violates the Fourth Amendment. See 2018 WI 84, ¶15, 383 Wis. 2d 192, 202–203, 914 N. W. 2d 151, 155–156 (2018). The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed Mitchell’s convictions, and we granted certiorari, 586 U. S. ___ (2019), to decide “[w]hether a statute author­ Cite as: 588 U. S. ____ (2019) 5 Opinion of ALITO, J. izing a blood draw from an unconscious motorist provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant require­ ment,” Pet. for Cert. ii. II In considering Wisconsin’s implied­consent law, we do not write on a blank slate. “Our prior opinions have re­ ferred approvingly to the general concept of implied­ consent laws that impose civil penalties and evidentiary consequences on motorists who refuse to comply.” Birchfield, 579 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 36). But our decisions have not rested on the idea that these laws do what their popular name might seem to suggest—that is, create actual consent to all the searches they authorize. Instead, we have based our decisions on the precedent regarding the specific constitutional claims in each case, while keep­ ing in mind the wider regulatory scheme developed over the years to combat drunk driving. That scheme is cen­ tered on legally specified BAC limits for drivers—limits enforced by the BAC tests promoted by implied­consent laws. Over the ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Final Answer

Attached.

1

Michael V Wisconsin
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Professor
Course
Date

MICHAEL V WISCONSIN

2
Michael V Wisconsin

The paper analyzes the Mitchell v Wisconsin case, which was a landmark case in the
United States. The case involved a lawsuit filed by a person who sued an officer of violating his
First Amendment right and also the Fourth Amendment right of unreasonable search. The person
was driving while drink wit...

TeacherBradwine (10327)
UC Berkeley

Anonymous
Thanks for the help.

Anonymous
Outstanding. Studypool always delivers quality work.

Anonymous
Tutor was very helpful and took the time to explain concepts to me. Very responsive, managed to get replies within the hour.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4