A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court changes the law in New Jersey about the need for a search warrant to extract blood from a driver thought to be driving while drunk. The court held on April 17 in Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552, that the Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant to draw blood unless exigent circumstances prevent obtaining one before blood alcohol dissipates. Exigent circumstances is a well-established exception to the search warrant requirement, but the simple biological fact of the predictable metabolism of alcohol does not alone constitute such exigency, the court said.
The state of Missouri had asked the court to hold that the natural dissipation of blood alcohol is an exigent circumstance in all drunk-driving cases, excusing the usual warrant requirement. The arresting officer testified that he did not try to obtain a warrant simply because he did not think one was needed even though he was "sure" a prosecutor was on call and believed a magistrate was available. He also admitted he had easily gotten warrants for blood draws in other cases and no facts in this case suggested that he faced an emergency or unusual delay, had he sought a warrant. The trial court suppressed the evidence and Missouri’s high court affirmed, rejecting the idea of a per se exigency.
