SENATE BILL: Mitchell Act (At Final Vote)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

SENATE BILL
To prohibit police officers from ordering blood draws from unconscious DUI suspects without a warrant

Be it enacted in Both Houses of Congress Assembled,

Section 1: Title

This legislation may be cited as the Mitchell Act.

Section 2: Requiring a judicial warrant prior to the taking of an unconscious person's blood

Whereas, unconscious persons shall retain their right to bodily autonomy, Section II of the Who Polices the Police Act is hereby amended:

1. The practice of issuing administrative subpoenas under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to seize electronic data stored on a third-party server is hereby prohibited. No such data may be seized unless a valid warrant is issued by a federal magistrate or judge with appropriate jurisdiction over the investigation. 18 U.S.C. § 2511 shall be amended accordingly.

2. 47 USC § 1001-1010 imposing CALEA software compatibility on certain electronic devices or telecommunications equipment is hereby repealed.

3. No federal law enforcement officer shall enter upon the real property of a person to view or record the data on a meter measuring electrical usage, unless the law enforcement officer has the express consent of the real property owner or a person who resides full time at the real property, or unless the law enforcement officer has a lawful warrant issued by a federal judge or magistrate with appropriate jurisdiction.

4. No federal law enforcement officer shall implant or attach any device used for the purpose of tracking or recording geographic location via satellite to any person, privately owned vehicle, aircraft, or vessel, or any other privately owned personal property, unless the law enforcement officer has the express consent of the person or property owner, or unless the law enforcement officer has a lawful warrant issued by a federal judge or magistrate with appropriate jurisdiction.

5. No federal law enforcement officer shall use unmanned drones for the purpose of tracking a person or a privately owned vehicle, aircraft, or vessel, unless the law enforcement officer has the express consent of the person or property owner, or unless the law enforcement officer has a lawful warrant issued by a federal judge or magistrate with appropriate jurisdiction, or if there is probable cause that the person, vehicle, aircraft, or vessel is fleeing from the location of recently committed crime.

6. No federal law enforcement officer shall photograph the unopened mail correspondence between private parties, unless the law enforcement officer has the express consent of one of the parties, or unless the law enforcement officer has a lawful warrant issued by a federal judge or magistrate with appropriate jurisdiction.

7. No federal law enforcement officer shall order or initiate the drawing of blood from an unconscious person unless the law enforcement officer has a lawful warrant issued by a federal judge or magistrate with appropriate jurisdiction.

7. 8. 50 U.S.C. § 1861 authorizing the seizure of domestic files, books, and other tangible things for evidence on foreign suspects without a warrant is hereby repealed.

People's Regional Senate
Pending

Sponsor: Devout for FM Scott
Senate Designation: SB19:08

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The sponsor has 24 hours to commence an advocacy here and other members have 48 hours to respond.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The IRL Supreme Court recently passed a ruling in a 5-4 decision affirming the drunk-driving conviction of Gerald Mitchell, who was administered a warrantless blood test while he was unconscious.

The bill that is currently on the floor of the Senate reaffirms a reasonable expectation of privacy of one of the most fundamental rights people hold in a free society.  Accordingly, Section §1.8 of our Constitution prohibits warrantless searches, with few exceptions.  The police in the SCOTUS case cited violated that right when they drew Mr. Mitchell's blood as he was unconscious, in order to test his blood alcohol level in the event of a drunk-driving arrest.  The state has attempted to excuse the officers' actions by citing an implied-consent statute, which provides that simply driving on state roads constitutes consent to such searches.

While the right to privacy is not absolute and police are allowed to search for evidence of a crime, law enforcement must follow procedures that comport with our Constitution.  Before police conduct a search, in instances where the affected party cannot consent, the evidence should be judged by a neutral and detached magistrate, instead of being judged by the officer present at the scene of the alleged crime.  Our Constitution contains a simple requirement for law enforcement that is an effective bulwark against unreasonable searches, and that requirement is to get a warrant.

Unfortunately for Mr. Mitchell, he was unconscious during the drawing of his blood and therefore could not give his affirmative consent to be subject to a blood test, which is standard procedure for individuals who are accused of driving while intoxicated.  By affirming the drunk-driving conviction of Mr. Mitchell, the US Supreme Court gave police officers the green light to freely collect evidence which can normally only be obtained via freely-given consent - that evidence, of course, being one's bodily fluids.

With this, I concur with the Cato Institute, which joined the Rutherford Institution in filing an amicus brief in support of Mr. Mitchell's petition, that unconscious people simply cannot consent to anything, especially police searches, and that inspecting a coal mine for safety compliance - a justified exception to warrantless searches - is not the same as searching a driver's blood in an attempt to convict him of a DUI.

As such, I thank Senator Devout Centrist for introducing this bill on my behalf, and I urge the Senate to pass this bill for the fair and equal application of the law as prescribed by our Bill of Rights.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators, hello?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I certainly am not fond of the opinions whenever they are a combination of Roberts, Breyer, Alito and Kavanaugh get together, as they typically are the worst.

It seems patently obvious that being unconscious that his rights were violated and absent a warrant this should not have happened.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

I support this amendment.

[Vern]

I support this.

[Former President tack50]

This looks like a good and simple bill.

Senators, hello?

Hi! *Waves hand*

[Devout Centrist]

This act will prevent law enforcement from drawing blood from unconscious or incapacitated person without a warrant. It's a straightforward change to existing law and I hope my colleagues can vote in favor as soon as possible.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You guys really need to post more in the debate threads.


Why?

The Sooner you guys post, the sooner I know something has unanimous support and the sooner I can do this.

I motion for a final vote, Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A final vote is now open on his legislations, Senators please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Former President tack50]

Aye

[ON Progressive]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[Devout Centrist]

Aye

[Comrade Funk]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Final Passage of the Mitchell Act:

Aye (5): Comrade Funk, Devout Centrist, NC Yankee, Ontario Progressive and Tack50
Nay (0):
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (1): Vern1988

This legislation has passed the Senate and is sent to the VP.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

SENATE BILL
To prohibit police officers from ordering blood draws from unconscious DUI suspects without a warrant

Be it enacted in Both Houses of Congress Assembled,

Section 1: Title

This legislation may be cited as the Mitchell Act.

Section 2: Requiring a judicial warrant prior to the taking of an unconscious person's blood

Whereas, unconscious persons shall retain their right to bodily autonomy, Section II of the Who Polices the Police Act is hereby amended:

1. The practice of issuing administrative subpoenas under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to seize electronic data stored on a third-party server is hereby prohibited. No such data may be seized unless a valid warrant is issued by a federal magistrate or judge with appropriate jurisdiction over the investigation. 18 U.S.C. § 2511 shall be amended accordingly.

2. 47 USC § 1001-1010 imposing CALEA software compatibility on certain electronic devices or telecommunications equipment is hereby repealed.

3. No federal law enforcement officer shall enter upon the real property of a person to view or record the data on a meter measuring electrical usage, unless the law enforcement officer has the express consent of the real property owner or a person who resides full time at the real property, or unless the law enforcement officer has a lawful warrant issued by a federal judge or magistrate with appropriate jurisdiction.

4. No federal law enforcement officer shall implant or attach any device used for the purpose of tracking or recording geographic location via satellite to any person, privately owned vehicle, aircraft, or vessel, or any other privately owned personal property, unless the law enforcement officer has the express consent of the person or property owner, or unless the law enforcement officer has a lawful warrant issued by a federal judge or magistrate with appropriate jurisdiction.

5. No federal law enforcement officer shall use unmanned drones for the purpose of tracking a person or a privately owned vehicle, aircraft, or vessel, unless the law enforcement officer has the express consent of the person or property owner, or unless the law enforcement officer has a lawful warrant issued by a federal judge or magistrate with appropriate jurisdiction, or if there is probable cause that the person, vehicle, aircraft, or vessel is fleeing from the location of recently committed crime.

6. No federal law enforcement officer shall photograph the unopened mail correspondence between private parties, unless the law enforcement officer has the express consent of one of the parties, or unless the law enforcement officer has a lawful warrant issued by a federal judge or magistrate with appropriate jurisdiction.

7. No federal law enforcement officer shall order or initiate the drawing of blood from an unconscious person unless the law enforcement officer has a lawful warrant issued by a federal judge or magistrate with appropriate jurisdiction.

7. 8. 50 U.S.C. § 1861 authorizing the seizure of domestic files, books, and other tangible things for evidence on foreign suspects without a warrant is hereby repealed.

People's Regional Senate
Passed 5-0 in the Atlasian Senate Assembled,