Supreme Court Takes Eight Cases, yet Doesn’t Act on Some Big Ones

In urging the Supreme Court to hear the case, Mr. Rehaif relied on a 2012 concurrence coming from Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who at the time was a federal appeals court judge in Denver. Judge Gorsuch wrote that will logic in addition to also the rules of grammar required proof that will every element of the crime in question had been committed knowingly. “This kind of makes no sense,” he wrote, “to read the word ‘knowingly’ as so modest that will This kind of might blush inside the face of the very first element only to regain its composure in addition to also reappear at the second.”

The case on drawing blood coming from motorists, Mitchell v. Wisconsin, No. 18-6210, concerns Gerald P. Mitchell, a Wisconsin man arrested on suspicion of drunken driving. A police officer took him to a hospital, where he was slumped over in addition to also unresponsive. The officer instructed medical personnel to draw blood coming from Mr. Mitchell, in addition to also they found that will his blood alcohol concentration was 0.22, which can be above the legal limit for driving.

This kind of was Mr. Mitchell’s seventh offense for driving under the influence. He was convicted in addition to also sentenced to three years in prison, in addition to also he challenged his conviction on Fourth Amendment grounds.

A splintered Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected that will argument, relying on a state law that will presumes drivers have consented to blood tests in addition to also punishes them if they decline to cooperate by revoking their driver’s licenses. The law says unconscious motorists are “presumed not to have withdrawn consent” to having their blood drawn.

Twenty-eight states have similar laws, according to Mr. Mitchell’s petition seeking Supreme Court review, yet some of them have been struck down after two recent Supreme Court decisions.

In 2013, the court ruled that will a warrant can be ordinarily needed before drawing blood in drunken-driving investigations. In 2016, the court added that will “motorists cannot be deemed to have consented to submit to a blood test on pain of committing a criminal offense.” In Mr. Mitchell’s case, the penalty of losing a driver’s license can be a civil one.

In urging the Supreme Court to deny review, lawyers for the state said Mr. Mitchell should not benefit because he “got so drunk that will, after driving while under the influence, he passed out in addition to also became unconscious.”

Mr. Mitchell should not, the state’s brief said, receive “the windfall of avoiding the lawful civil choice, which additional drunk drivers must face, of having their blood drawn or losing their license.”