TELEPHONIC REQUESTS FOR SEARCH WARRANTS FOR BLOOD TESTS IN DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (DWI) CASES (MISSOURI V. MCNEELY) -- RULE RELAXATION NJ NOTICE TO THE BAR
The attached October 8, 2013 New Jersey Supreme Court order addresses the process for telephonic requests for search warrants for nonconsensual blood tests in certain DWI cases and is in response to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Missouri v. McNeely, __ U.S. __, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 185 L.Ed. 2d 696 (2013). The order has a December 1, 2013 effective date.
In McNeely, the United States Supreme Court held “that in drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant.” 185 L.Ed.2d at 715. Further, “[w]hether a warrantless blood test of a drunk-driving suspect is reasonable must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 709.
The New Jersey Supreme Court order published with this notice relaxes and supplements the Part III (Criminal) and Part VII (Municipal Court) Rules so as to authorize certain Municipal Court judges to issue search warrants for nonconsensual blood testing in all driving while intoxicated (DWI) cases where no indictable charge is anticipated, with the Assignment Judge to designate either all of the Municipal Court judges in the county to have this authority or just particular specified judges. Such authorization is not limited to evening or weekend hours. Further, the search warrant may be issued in this limited category of cases by a designated Municipal Court judge in person or by telephone, radio or other means of electronic communication upon sworn oral testimony of a law enforcement officer or prosecuting attorney communicated to the issuing judge, pursuant to the procedures outlined in R. 3:5-3(a) and (b). Superior Court judges will handle search warrants for blood tests in those DWI cases where an indictable charge is anticipated. The Supreme Court order does not affect any current procedures for Municipal Court judges to issue in-person
