VI. DRUNK DRIVING
A. Blood and Urine Tests (See also, SEARCH AND
SEIZURE, this Digest)
State v. Lutz, 309 N.J. Super. 317 (App. Div. 1998),
affirmed defendant’s driving under the influence
conviction and sentence, but reversed his careless driving
conviction. The blood test procedure used to detect
defendant’s blood-alcohol content, an Ekta routine
chemistry analyzer using an Ektachem liquid perfor-
mance verifier, was sufficient to establish the reliability of
defendant’s test results. Since defendant consented to a
blood test, probable cause to arrest was not an issue.
Once the officer received those test results, probable
cause existed to arrest defendant for driving under the
influence. Additionally, defendant had caused a head-on
collision when he crossed the center line. The summons
charging defendant with “driving under influence”
referenced the proper statute involved and adequately
informed defendant of the offense charged. Also,
defendant was not entitled to a jury trial as a third-time
drunk driver, and the State had failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that he was guilty of careless driving.
In State v. Ravotto, 333 N.J. Super. 247 (App. Div.
2000), certif. granted 165 N.J. 677 (2000), the Appellate
Division granted the State leave to appeal and reversed
the Law Division’s suppression of blood evidence taken
from defendant, a drunk driver. The municipal court
denied defendant’s suppression motion, but the Law
Division reversed. It held that, after defendant’s arrest for
driving under the influence, the warrantless withdrawal
of his blood at the hospital where he had been transported
in an ambulance and restrained after wrecking his car was
illegal, since he had not consented and no exigent
circumstances had existed. The Appellate Division
agreed with the State that no search warrant was required.
Motor vehicle drivers arrested for driving under the
influence have no legal right to refuse blood testing, need
not consent to blood withdrawal, and can be restrained
if necessary to extract a blood sample. Here, the police
could not use a Breathalyzer machine at police
headquarters because defendant was being taken to the
hospital for possible injuries caused in the wreck, and the
hospital would be testing his blood anyway for its own
purposes. Defendant did not want to be at the hospital,
to be examined, or to have his blood extracted; in short,
he was belligerent and uncooperative. Thus, he could be
restrained while his blood was drawn. The Supreme
Court has granted certification on the issue of the
constitutionality of the warrantless forced extraction of
the driver’s blood by a nurse in the emergency room at
police direction.State v. Weller, 225 N.J. Super. 274 (Law Div. 1986),
on remand to consider the matter in light of the holding
in State v. Matulewicz, 101 N.J. 27, 31 (1985), to
determine whether blood test results by the State Police
lab chemist should be accepted as reliable, found that the
laboratory reports containing positive readings of ethyl
alcohol in the blood of defendants are admissible without
accompanying testimony from the qualified forensic
scientist who performed the tests. It relied on the expert
testimony offered by the State Police Chief Forensic
Scientist concerning the standards and procedures used
in performing blood-alcohol analysis, and the technical
manner in which test results were obtained and recorded.
To be admitted, however, the State must supply the
defendant, through discovery, with all of the gas
chromatography results and data of all testing standards
as well as the test on the defendant’s blood sample, and
the scientist’s notes.In State v. Oliveri, 336 N.J. Super. 244 (App. Div.
2001), defendant contended that the laboratory report
cannot qualify as a business record. The Appellate
Division held that admissibility is informed by an
evidential record that addresses the relevancy and
reliability factors discussed in Matulewicz, as codified in
N.J.R.E. 808. In this case there was no viable challenge
to the methodology used to draw the blood or the chain
of custody. The test performed was a “Headspace Gas
Chromatography,” the same test as in Weller, and as part
of pretrial discovery the defense was supplied with the
charts, which would readily reveal any deviation outside
the specified standard of error. The defense, however, did
not attempt to show any such deviations on the charts.
The lab certificate contained a notarized certification
from the forensic scientist who performed the test,
specifying his qualifications, and certifying that the
report fairly and accurately documents the type and
results of the analysis performed. In addition to vouching
for the accuracy and reliability of the test, he also stated
that the test was performed on a routine basis within the
lab. N.J.R.E. 808 permits admission of such a business
or public record when the report concerns an
uncomplicated subject matter and the likelihood of
accuracy is high. Traditionally, blood-alcohol analysis is
viewed as such a simple and accurate procedure
warranting admission of a report without additional
testimony from the person who performed the test.State v. Warmbrun, 277 N.J. Super. 51 (App. Div.
1994), certif. denied 140 N.J. 277 (1995), in affirming a