Gerhartz v. Richert

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-police officials’ motion for summary judgment in section 1983 action by plaintiff alleging that defendants violated his 4th Amendment rights by ordering that his blood be drawn for evidentiary purposes following his arrest for driving under influence of alcohol, where defendants had no warrant to draw plaintiff’s blood. Although Ct. in McNeely, 133 S.Ct. 1552 (2013), held that natural dissipation of alcohol from person’s bloodstream, without more, does not constitute per se exigency, defendants were still entitled to qualified immunity where case law, prior to McNeely, was not clearly established on issue as to whether natural dissipation of alcohol from bloodstream constituted per se exigency that would excuse lack of warrant, and where Wisc. law had adopted per se exigency rule in blood-alcohol cases.