State v. Timothy Adkins (073803)
113 A.3d 734
| N.J. | 2015Background
- Adkins was arrested for DWI after a single-car crash in the early hours of Dec. 16, 2010 and transported for blood testing without a warrant or written consent.
- Police advised Miranda rights; Adkins invoked counsel; no headquarters breath test was conducted.
- Hospital blood sample was drawn at police direction at 4:16 a.m. and BAC results were obtained without a warrant.
- Pre-McNeely NJ law allowed warrantless blood draws based on dissipation-of-alcohol exigency under Schmerber-derived standards.
- After McNeely (Apr. 2013) held no per se exigency, Adkins moved to suppress; the trial court suppressed, Appellate Division reversed.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey held McNeely retroactive and remanded for a hearing on exigency with a totality-of-circumstances standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McNeely applies retroactively to pipeline cases | Adkins argues McNeely governs retroactively. | State argues pipeline retroactivity but relies on Davis-like good-faith. | McNeely applies retroactively to cases in the pipeline. |
| Whether the exclusionary rule should bar the BAC evidence | Adkins seeks exclusion under Novembrino good-faith denial. | State urges Davis-style good-faith exception or no deterrence issue. | McNeely governs retroactivity; court remands for exigency hearing; no broad good-faith exception adopted. |
| What standard governs exigency in pipeline cases post-McNeely | Totality-of-circumstances approach should be used with McNeely factors. | Exigency should rely on prior NJ case law supporting dissipation-based urgency. | Focus on objective exigency under totality-of-circumstances; substantial weight to dissipation evidence. |
| Remand procedure for exigency determination | State should be allowed to present its basis for exigency. | Defendant should be afforded opportunity to challenge under McNeely framework. | Remand to trial court for hearing on exigency with McNeely framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (established totality-of-the-circumstances exigency and reasonable method)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. 2013) (rejected per se exigency for dissipation; totality-of-circumstances test)
- State v. Wessells, 209 N.J. 395 (N.J. 2012) (retroactivity of new rule in pipeline cases)
- Novembrino v. State, 105 N.J. 95 (N.J. 1987) (rejected good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (U.S. 2011) (good-faith reliance on binding appellate precedent; exclusionary rule exception)
- Harris v. State, 211 N.J. 566 (N.J. 2012) (limited exceptions to exclusionary rule; not broad good-faith rule)
- Ravotto, 169 N.J. 227 (N.J. 2001) (dissipation of alcohol as exigency factor in Schmerber context)
- Dyal v. State, 97 N.J. 229 (N.J. 1984) (emergency context of drunken driver and dissipation)
- Brooks v. Minnesota, 133 S. Ct. 1996 (U.S. 2013) (remand by Supreme Court in McNeely context)
- Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs. Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (U.S. 1989) (intrusive bodily samples as Fourth Amendment search)