In the case of Breithaupt v. Abram, Warden in 1956, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a blood test taken while an individual is unconscious does not violate their constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The petitioner, Breithaupt was involved in a fatal car accident and fell into unconsciousness afterwards. A blood sample was drawn without his consent while he remained unconscious which showed alcohol content above legal limit leading to manslaughter charges against him. He argued this violated his right against self-incrimination as well as due process rights since it was done without consent or warrant but both state courts and ultimately the Supreme Court disagreed with him stating that such tests are commonplace, do not involve brutality nor shock conscience hence they don't infringe upon personal security or dignity.

In the dissenting opinion for Breithaupt v. Abram, Justice William O. Douglas argued that forcibly drawing blood from an unconscious person without their consent or a warrant is a violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. He contended that such invasive procedures should not be allowed unless there was clear evidence to suggest guilt, which he did not believe existed in this case. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses of power by law enforcement if they were given free rein to conduct such intrusive tests without any checks or balances in place.