The public was outraged recently regarding what appeared to be a delay in releasing blood alcohol testing results for the Linden police officer accused of driving while under the influence. He and another officer were seriously injured when their vehicle travelled the wrong way on a highway. Two of the car’s other occupants were killed as a result of the accident. Why was a warrant required for the driver’s blood alcohol reading? Although this was a New York accident, New Jersey also has laws regarding warrants for blood alcohol tests in DWI cases.
Federal Law Regarding Necessity of Search Warrants
In Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 152 (2013), the United States Supreme Court ruled on a case involving a Missouri man, stopped for speeding and crossing a roadway’s centerline. The defendant was arrested for driving while under the influence. Despite the fact that the defendant refused to consent to testing of his blood alcohol content (BAC), the police had hospital personnel obtain the reading. They did so without a search warrant.
At the time of this Missouri event, only one exception would exempt a police officer from seeking a warrant to obtain blood tests. There would have to be an emergent situation justifying the warrantless search. The State argued that blood alcohol dissipation of alcohol made the blood draw emergent. The Supreme Court disagreed and found this constituted violation of the individual’s Fourth Amendment Rights.
Application of New Jersey Law
The New Jersey courts recently examined whether the McNeely case could be applied retroactively. In State v. Timothy Adkins (A-91-13) (073803), the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on a DWI blood draw case. This defendant was involved in a one-car accident and failed field sobriety tests. After he was arrested for DWI, police transported the defendant to the hospital for blood tests. The police did not secure the defendant’s written consent. They also failed to obtain a warrant to take his blood. Nevertheless, the blood was drawn by hospital personnel.
The Adkins motor vehicle stop occurred in 2010, three years prior to the McNeely decision. Therefore, the police relied on existing law regarding search warrants for obtaining blood tests. At that time, there appeared to be only two requirements for warrantless blood draws. One was that there was probable cause suggesting that the defendant was intoxicated. The other was that the sample was taken in a medically reasonable manner.
The New Jersey Appellate Division’s decision in this matter found that retroactivity should not be applied to the situation. However, the Supreme Court disagreed. They determined that law enforcement should have the ability to present the reason for their belief that the blood draw was urgent. It is up to the court to determine if the officers acted within reason.
Contact Us
If you have been accused of a DWI offense, seek legal advice from an attorney who is current on DWI law. Contact us for a complimentary appointment to discuss your case.
