McShane v. Moldenhauer
1:20-cv-00717
E.D. Wis.Jan 8, 2021Background
- On July 4, 2018 McShane rear-ended a motorcycle on I-43; the motorcyclist suffered critical injuries and later died.
- Deputy Jennifer Moldenhauer was first on scene, observed signs of intoxication in McShane (red/glassy eyes, odor), and administered standardized field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test (.134).
- McShane was arrested for OWI, taken to Froedtert Hospital, read the Informing the Accused form at 12:27 a.m., and agreed to a blood test; a nurse drew blood at 12:31 a.m.
- McShane was later convicted in state court of Homicide by Intoxicated Use of a Vehicle and brought this §1983 suit alleging the blood draw was involuntary and violated the Fourth Amendment.
- Moldenhauer moved for summary judgment; the court deemed the defendant’s proposed facts admitted because McShane failed to comply with the local rules and granted summary judgment for Moldenhauer.
- The court denied Moldenhauer’s motion to strike unrelated medical pages but restricted access to those pages to case participants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment as involuntary | McShane: blood draw was involuntary and unconstitutional | Moldenhauer: McShane expressly consented after being read the form | Held: Consent was given; warrantless blood draw reasonable; summary judgment for defendant |
| If no consent, whether exigent circumstances justified a warrantless blood draw | McShane: unconsciousness (or incapacity) meant no valid consent | Moldenhauer: dissipation of BAC and urgent medical/scene needs created exigency | Held: Even if nonconsensual, exigent-circumstances doctrine (Mitchell/Birchfield line) supports warrantless draw; search reasonable |
| Effect of plaintiff’s procedural failures and evidentiary objections | McShane: submitted exhibits and opposition but failed to follow local rule | Moldenhauer: sought to strike immaterial private medical pages and relied on admitted facts | Held: Motion to strike denied but access restricted; court deemed defendant’s proposed facts admitted for summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (civil-rights claim barred if success would imply invalidity of conviction)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (warrant typically required for blood draws absent exceptions)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (Fourth Amendment reasonableness framework)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (valid consent is an exception to warrant requirement)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (limits and permits certain warrantless alcohol testing in DUI context)
- Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S. Ct. 2525 (plurality: unconscious DUI suspects may justify warrantless blood tests under exigent circumstances)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and burden on nonmoving party)