Transportation Code · Mitchell v. Wisconsin

Mitchell v. Wisconsin

Mitchell v. Wisconsin is covered under Mitchell v. Wisconsin and tested on the TCOLE peace officer licensing exam. Cadets typically encounter this topic under "DWI Procedure" on practice exams.

To prove this offense, the State must establish each of the following elements: Unconscious driver, PC of DWI; Mitchell: exigency 'almost always' supports warrantless draw; Best practice: still obtain a warrant where feasible.

Elements you must prove

  • Unconscious driver, PC of DWI
  • Mitchell: exigency 'almost always' supports warrantless draw
  • Best practice: still obtain a warrant where feasible

Practice 1 question on 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. Generally need a search warrant; Mitchell v. Wisconsin recognized that exigent circumstances will often (but not always) justify a warrantless blood draw of an unconscious driver, but warrants remain best practice Correct
  3. Only at the scene
  4. Never without conscious consent
Why: Mitchell held that exigency will almost always justify a warrantless blood draw of an unconscious DWI suspect involved in an accident — but the case did not establish a per se rule; warrants remain best practice and many Texas agencies still obtain them.
Statute: Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S. Ct. 2525 (2019)