The Case "Jane Doe v. City of Instrusia"
Facts of the case:
A few years ago police officers in the City of Intrusia found Jane Doe seemingly
... [Show More] intoxicated in area near Lake Michigan. Doe was outside her vehicle that was located nearby. Consequently, officers administered a breath test on site and arrested her for operating a vehicle while impaired. En route to the local police station, Doe became unconscious, so officers instead drove Doe to the hospital for a blood draw [yielding a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) result].
Although Doe was unconscious, an officer read her a statement required by the State's “informed-consent” law and ordered hospital personnel to administer the blood draw. While at the hospital, officers examined Doe's smartphone and pulled real-time cell site location information from her smartphone that allowed officers to track her movements in the hours prior to her arrest (a smartphone generally has historical location data necessarily created by cellphones as they continuously ping off cell towers, which is then stored). Results of the blood draw showed a BAC of .199. Based on this evidence, Doe was charged with driving while intoxicated and having a prohibited alcohol concentration.
Doe moved to suppress information from her smartphone as well as the results of the blood test on the grounds that all of the information from her smartphone and her blood were taken without a warrant. The State argued that under that State's implied-consent statute, police did not need a warrant to draw her blood. Many States have implied consent laws which provide that by driving a vehicle, motorists consent to submit to chemical tests of breath, blood, or urine to determine alcohol or drug content. The trial court sided with the State and allowed the results of the blood test into evidence. Doe was convicted on both counts.
Doe appealed her conviction, but the State's Supreme Court upheld the search but without providing a clear rationale. Doe is appealing her conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court. The State claims that implied consent is a reasonable condition on the significant privilege for driving on the state’s roads. The State contends that its interest in combating impaired driving is sufficient cause alone, but further, there was a need for quick action to obtain accurate BAC results and with respect to the search of her smartphone, officers may conduct searches pursuant to certain standards encompassing evidence preservation and officer safety.
Constitutional Issues
• Does a statute that authorizes a blood draw from an unconscious motorist provide an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement?
• Does the Fourth Amendment protection against search and seizure protect text messages and/or other digital content on a smartphone/cell phone?
• Is there implied consent for certain actions by law enforcement related to a person's use of a vehicle and public roads?
• Does a state “implied consent” law that authorizes a blood draw from an unconscious motorist violate the Fourth Amendment?
• Is a blood draw a significant intrusion into a person’s privacy?
• Would you apply the two prong test of Katz to (any part of) this case?
• Is there a “reasonable expectation of privacy” with regard to digital information such as can be done with a smartphone ? [Show Less]