Blood Draw Should Require a Warrant
In Zalcberg, the court not only failed to interpret New Jersey's Constitution as requiring that a warrant be obtained before blood is drawn, but it refused to follow the United States Supreme Court's clear mandate that a warrant be obtained under such circumstances.
April 23, 2018 at 11:00 AM
3 minute read
In State v. Zalcberg, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that police ignorance of procedures to be followed to obtain a warrant justified a warrantless sampling of the defendant's blood. The court's decision creates a new exception to the warrant requirement that is disturbing and completely at variance with its precedents and those of the United States Supreme Court.
The case arose from a serious automobile accident, allegedly caused by the inebriation of the defendant. Nine law enforcement officers, in addition to fire and medical personnel, responded to the incident. Officials began responding to the scene before 8:35 p.m. By 9:05 p.m. the road had been closed and secured. At approximately 9:25 p.m. a paramedic advised one of the responding officers that he had smelled alcohol on the breath of the defendant, an unconscious female. Shortly before, one of the officers saw a small bottle of alcohol on the console of defendant's vehicle. It was not until 10:36 p.m. that defendant was driven to the hospital to obtain a sample of her blood. Defendant arrived at the hospital at 10:53 p.m., but her blood was not drawn until 12:05 a.m. In the two hours and 45 minutes between when the officers had cause to believe the defendant had consumed alcohol, and the time her blood sample was taken, the police neither discussed nor made any effort whatever to obtain a telephonic warrant.
The trial judge, after hearing testimony, made detailed factual findings and suppressed the blood sample. The court found that a judge would have been available to issue a warrant had a timely application been made. The court also found that the police had failed to contact a judge because they were unaware of the procedures for obtaining a telephonic warrant. The Appellate Division overturned the trial court's ruling, with the Supreme Court affirming the Appellate Division's order.
The court ruled that the circumstances were emergent, and because the police had been unaware of the procedures for obtaining a warrant by telephone, their failure to obtain a warrant was justified.
The court's decision is at odds with landmark decisions of the United States Supreme Court, to say nothing of the New Jersey Supreme Court's own rulings. In 2013, the United States Supreme Court, in State v. McNeely, held that, in the absence of exigent circumstances, before blood may be drawn from a non-consenting suspect, a search warrant must be obtained. The natural dissipation of alcohol, the court ruled, is not, in itself, an exigency sufficient to justify an exception to the warrant requirement.
Dissenting in Zalcberg, Justices Albin and Timpone sharply criticized the court for permitting police ignorance of warrant procedures to be a factor in determining whether exigent circumstances excused police failure to obtain a warrant. Also criticized was the court's refusal to defer to factual findings made by the trial court, as is required as a matter of course in all matters on appeal.
New Jersey's Supreme Court has historically recognized greater freedoms under New Jersey's Constitution than the United States Supreme Court has recognized under parallel provisions of the United States Constitution. In Zalcberg, the court not only failed to interpret New Jersey's Constitution as requiring that a warrant be obtained before blood is drawn from a non-consenting defendant believed to have been driving while intoxicated, but it refused to follow the United States Supreme Court's clear mandate that a warrant be obtained under such circumstances.
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
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAs Trafficking, Hate Crimes Rise in NJ, State's Federal Delegation Must Weigh in On New UN Proposal
4 minute readAppellate Court's Decision on Public Employee Pension Eligibility Helps the Judiciary
5 minute readWhere CFPB Enforcement Stops Short on Curbing School Lunch Fees, Class Action Complaint Steps Up
5 minute read'Confusion Where Previously There Was Clarity': NJ Supreme Court Should Void Referral Fee Ethics Opinion
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250