A 2013 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court (Missouri v. McNeely) stated that police officers should obtain a warrant before administering a urine or blood test on DUI suspects. The New Jersey Supreme Court is now considering whether this ruling should retroactively apply to two cases in which blood test results were upheld in court despite a lack of a warrant or consent.
State v Adkins and State v. Verpent
In each of these two cases (State v Adkins and State v Verpent) regarding NJ DUI, blood tests were administered by officers without a warrant first being issued. According to Missouri v. McNeely, officers need to issue a warrant before they are allowed to conduct a blood test. However, each of these New Jersey cases occurred prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which means that the ruling would have to be applied retroactively.
Protect Yourself With a NJ DUI Lawyer
Cases such as these demonstrate two things. The first is that DUI laws can be complicated without the assistance of a NJ DUI lawyer who is experienced and understands the subtleties of DUI law in New Jersey. The second thing that these cases demonstrate is that your case has a chance, even when it seems hopeless.
You need to choose a NJ DUI lawyer who is a good fit for you and will work hard on your behalf in order to defend the rights afforded to you by the United States and the state of New Jersey.
What Do State v Adkins and State v. Verpent Mean for You
If you have been charged with DUI in New Jersey in the past, after failing a blood or urine test, State v Adkins and State v. Verpent could be extremely important to you. A ruling in favor of the defendants in these cases could mean that a similar ruling could also retroactively apply to your DUI conviction.
If you believe you were treated unfairly during your DUI arrest in New Jersey, contact a NJ DUI lawyer at Villani & DeLuca today.