No blood draw without
warrant unless exigency
State of New Jersey v. William Smiejan, N.J.
Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (7 pp.) Appellant was involved in an accident in
which he struck two parked cars. While at the hospital for his injuries, a
sample of his blood was taken without his consent or a search warrant;
subsequent testing established his blood alcohol content was above the legal
limit. Appellant moved for, and was denied suppression of the BAC evidence. The
court noted there were exigent circumstances which existed because of the
delays inherent in the warrant application process. On appeal, appellant argued
that the seizure of his blood violated the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme
Court's Missouri v. McNeelyruling applied which held
that dissipation did not constitute an exigency, and ineffective assistance of
counsel. The court reversed holding the trial court erred in relying upon the
municipal judge's past experience as a factual basis to find the existence of
an adequate exigency. The court further held there were no meaningful factual
findings made by either the municipal court judge or the law division judge.
Finally, the court stated that, pursuant to McNeely, the
case was to be remanded to determine whether the circumstances warranted the
admission of the blood draw as the trial court failed to determine under the
totality of the circumstances whether exigency existed thereby negating a need
for a warrant. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.
Source http://www.njlawjournal.com/id=1202784736777/Unpublished-Opinions-for-the-Week-of-May-1-2017?mcode=0&curindex=0&curpage=3
