96 A.3d 297
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2014Background
- On Dec. 28, 2011, defendant caused a three-vehicle crash at a busy Cherry Hill intersection; there were injuries and an extensive emergency response.
- Defendant was unconscious in a heavily damaged car and had to be extricated by fire/EMS, a process taking ~30 minutes; she was transported to a hospital.
- EMS reported an odor of alcohol; at the hospital, after regaining consciousness, defendant admitted drinking, displayed slurred speech, and could not answer basic questions.
- Officer Sorrentino requested a nurse draw blood at ~8:15 p.m.; the blood test showed BAC .345 (drawn ~1 hour 15 minutes after police first responded).
- At the time, local practice did not generally involve obtaining telephonic warrants for blood draws; officers testified they lacked telephone-warrant training then.
- Defendant moved to suppress the warrantless blood test after McNeely; the trial judge granted suppression concluding the State failed to show it was impossible to obtain a warrant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McNeely requires suppression of the warrantless hospital blood draw | State: Schmerber/Dyal permitted warrantless blood draws given accident, injuries, hospital delay, and dissipation of alcohol; exigency existed | Jones: McNeely applies and rejects per se exigency; no exigency here because a warrant could have been obtained | Reversed: exigent-circumstances totality (including accident, injuries, lengthy scene investigation, transport delay, and alcohol dissipation) supported warrantless draw |
| Retroactive application of McNeely | State: outcome need not turn on retroactivity; even applying McNeely suppression not required | Jones: McNeely is a new rule that must be applied retroactively to pending cases | Court avoided retroactivity question and decided on merits — suppression not required under McNeely's totality test |
| Burden to show exigency (need to prove impossibility of obtaining warrant) | State: McNeely does not require proof that obtaining a warrant was impossible; threats of evidence dissipation suffice | Jones: trial court required showing it was impossible to obtain a warrant and absence of such proof mandates suppression | Court: trial judge applied too stringent standard; State only needed to show delays (transport/investigation) threatened destruction of evidence |
| Effect of officers' reliance on existing state precedent and warrant procedures | State: New Jersey precedent permitted warrantless draws in these circumstances; officers acted in good faith | Jones: reliance on old precedent not dispositive under McNeely | Court: acknowledged good-faith/existing practice but rested decision on totality of circumstances favoring exigency |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (rejects per se exigency for dissipation of alcohol; exigency determined by totality of circumstances)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (warrantless blood draw permissible where delay to obtain a warrant would have threatened loss of evidence in accident-with-injury context)
- State v. Dyal, 97 N.J. 229 (1984) (New Jersey precedent allowing involuntary blood draws at hospital where probable cause and medically acceptable procedure exist)
- State v. Wessells, 209 N.J. 395 (2012) (federal constitutional rule changes apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review)
- State v. Adkins, 433 N.J. Super. 479 (App. Div. 2013) (discusses interplay of McNeely and good-faith reliance on existing state precedent)