Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-1782-13T3
04-06-2015
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARIANNE CORSIGLIA, Defendant-Respondent.
Michael J. Forte, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant (John T. Lenahan, Salem County Prosecutor, attorney; Mr. Forte, of counsel and on the brief). Vincent J. Pancari argued the cause for respondent (Capizola, Pancari, Lapham & Fralinger, attorneys; Mr. Pancari, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Nugent and Manahan. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Salem County, Indictment No. 13-07-390. Michael J. Forte, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant (John T. Lenahan, Salem County Prosecutor, attorney; Mr. Forte, of counsel and on the brief). Vincent J. Pancari argued the cause for respondent (Capizola, Pancari, Lapham & Fralinger, attorneys; Mr. Pancari, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
On the night in May 2012 that police, without a warrant, directed hospital personnel to draw a sample of defendant Marianne Corsiglia's blood following a fatal motor vehicle accident, the United States Supreme Court had not decided Missouri v. McNeely, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 133 S. Ct. 1552, 1556, 185 L. Ed. 2d 696, 702 (2013). There, the Court held that the metabolization of alcohol in the blood stream does not present a per se exigency justifying an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in all drunk-driving cases, but rather requires that the issue of exigent circumstances be determined case-by-case based on the totality of the circumstances. Ibid. The Supreme Court decided McNeely on April 17, 2013. Three months later, a Salem County Grand Jury charged defendant Corsiglia in a single-count indictment with death by auto, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-5. Thereafter, based on McNeely, the trial court granted defendant's motion to suppress the blood sample, the State having failed at a suppression hearing to demonstrate exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless seizure of a sample of defendant's blood. On leave granted, the State appealed.
Following the State's appeal, we decided State v. Adkins, 433 N.J. Super. 479, 484 (App. Div. 2013), certif. granted, 217 N.J. 588 (2014). In Adkins, we held that because police fully complied with the law in effect when, without a warrant, they had blood drawn from a defendant suspected of driving while intoxicated, application of the exclusionary rule would not serve the rule's purpose. Id. at 493. We reversed the trial court's order suppressing the evidence. In the case before us, we adhere to our decision in Adkins. Accordingly, we reverse the order suppressing defendant's blood sample.
Reversed and remanded for trial. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION