Presented by New Jersey DWI Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark.
Should the defendant’s blood test results be suppressed in light of the U.S.
Supreme Court’s decision in Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 185 L.Ed.2d
696 (2013), which held that there is no per se rule of exigency in drunk
driving cases?
The New Jersey State Supreme Court has agreed to hear argument on the case and decide if the U.S. Supreme Court decision should be applied to all pending cases at the time of the decision or only those arrests which took place after the decision was made by the Court. That was the issue in State v Adkins. The New Jersey trial court and Appellate Division had determined that McNeely represented a new criminal procedure and hence no retroactive application to pending cases. The issue to be decided by the NJ Supreme Court is whether there should be ‘pipeline retroactivity’ because the decision by the U.S. Supreme court in McNeely vs. Missouri was merely the extension of existing Criminal procedure law or an entirely new criminal procedure.
See also State vs. Noah Pressler decision
Legal Developments
That Affect You
-
2022 changes to New Jersey statute N.J.S.A. 45:1-15.9.
This memorandum addresses the scope of New Jersey statute N.J.S.A. 45:1-15.9,summarizes the 2022 amendments to that statute, identifies the effective date andapplicability of those amendments, and outlines practical implications forregulated professionals and licensing boards. Background N.J.S.A. 45:1-15.9 is part of New Jersey’s professional and occupational licensinglaws administered under Title 45. The statute governs disciplinary and…