October Term 2018 · Docket 18-6210
Can police search an unconscious driver's phone without a warrant?
Wisconsin claims implied consent laws allow phone searches. The driver argues this violates the Fourth Amendment.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Andrew Hinkel argued the state cannot bypass the Fourth Amendment. He claimed statutes cannot create implied consent for searches.
Katherine Jurss argued the search was reasonable. She stated drivers agree to testing when they operate vehicles.
Justice Breyer asked what police should do with an unconscious driver. He questioned the practical steps for officers in emergencies.
Justice Ginsburg asked if an unconscious driver can revoke a license. She focused on the driver's inability to hear notices.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 27-13 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 27-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 21-22 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 21-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 25-30 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 25-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 33-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 34-30 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 34-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 12-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 12-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 17-30 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 17-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 36-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 36-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-8 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 22-28 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 22-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 30-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 30-11
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests whether implied consent laws override the Fourth Amendment. Police searched a phone after an unconscious driver crashed. The driver claims this search was unlawful. Wisconsin claims the law authorized the search.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 34-30 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 34-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-11
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 23, 2019.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-15
What each side wants
The driver wants the Court to strike down the search. He argues the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant.
Wisconsin wants the Court to uphold the search. It argues implied consent laws authorize the action.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 34-30 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 34-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-11
What each side says
The driver argues the state cannot waive constitutional rights via statute. He claims implied consent does not cover phone data.
Wisconsin argues the search was reasonable. It claims drivers agree to testing when they drive.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 34-30 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 34-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-11
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Roberts asked if checking call logs is less intrusive. He questioned whether this specific search is obviously unconstitutional.
Justice Alito questioned the practicality of getting warrants at night. He asked if judges are always available for emergency searches.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 27-13 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 27-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 21-22 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 21-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 25-30 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 25-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 33-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 12-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 12-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 17-30 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 17-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 36-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 36-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-8 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 22-28 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 22-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 30-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 30-11
Why it matters
This case defines police power over digital data. It determines if implied consent laws cover phones. The outcome shapes privacy rights for all drivers.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 34-30 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 34-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-11
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 27-13 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 27-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 21-22 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 21-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 25-30 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 25-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 33-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 12-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 12-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 17-30 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 17-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 36-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 36-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-8 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 22-28 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 22-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 30-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 30-11
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 34-30 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 34-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 34-30 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 34-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-11
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.