Whether the Fourth Amendment always permits a warrantless blood draw without consideration of the totality of the circumstances

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (Rule 14.1(a)) 1. Where a driver’s medical condition precludes a reasonable opportunity to administer a breath test, does the Fourth Amendment always permit a warrantless blood draw without the court’s consideration of whether the police could have reasonably obtained a warrant without interfering with other pressing needs or duties? 2. Whether the California Court of Appeal’s published decision interpreting this Court’s decisions in Missouri v. McNeely (2018) 569 U.S. 141, 148 [133 S.Ct. 1552, 185 L.Ed.2d 696] (“McNeely”), and Mitchell v. Wisconsin (2019) __U.S.___ [189 8.Ct. 2525, 204 L.Ed.2d 1040] (“Mitchell”) as always permitting a warrantless blood draw where a driver is unconscious and needs medical aid without consideration of the totality of the circumstances of analysis, including whether there was a “compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant,” incorrectly applies this Court’s decisions in McNeely and Mitchell and reaches a result that contravenes the Fourth Amendment and conflicts with decisions of other state and federal courts. i