Should the Court revisit Birchfield v. North Dakota to resolve a split in the States: does the Fourth Amendment permit statutory 'implied consent' to act as actual consent when the person is unconscious and physically unable to furnish a less intrusive breath test, or is a search warrant, exception, or actual consent required for search and seizure for a blood draw from an unconscious person?

Question Presented 1. Should the Court revisit Birchfield v. North Dakota, __U.S._ , 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (U.S. : 2016) to resolve a split in the States: does the Fourth Amendment permit statutory “implied consent’ to act as actual consent when the person is unconscious and physically unable to furnish a less intrusive breath test, or is a search warrant, exception, or actual consent required for search and seizure for a blood draw from an unconscious person? | | : | | | i : | : II. ‘Petition for Writ of Certiorari Cory Speelman, currently an inmate at Belmont Correctional Institution in St. Clairsville, Ohio, through counsel, respectfully petitions this court for a Writ of Certiorari to review the judgement of the Ohio court of Appeals below. Ill. Opinion Below The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals issued its decision on Dec. 29, 2017, reported at, State v. Speelman, 102 N.E.3d 1185 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).