A drunken driving suspect’s constitutional rights were not violated by a blood draw where police officers believed no warrant was needed and were unaware that warrants could be obtained by telephone, a divided Supreme Court ruled.

The majority ruled on Tuesday in State v. Zalcberg, 5-2 decision, that a lack of training for police about telephonic warrants—in the context of a serious road accident and a changing landscape for such warrants at the time—could form an exigency that renders the warrantless blood sampling compliant with the Fourth Amendment.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]