State v. McMaster
| Decision Date | 10 March 1972 |
| Citation | 288 A.2d 583,118 N.J.Super. 476 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. Russell McMASTER, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
John P. Goceljak, Asst. Prosecutor, for appellant (Joseph D. J. Gourley, Passaic County Prosecutor, attorney).
Arthur J. Lesemann, Hackensack, for respondent (Mazer & Lesemann, Hackensack, attorneys).
Before Judges CONFORD, MATTHEWS and FRITZ.
Defendant is charged with a violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4--50(a) (). While the complaint was pending the County Court suppressed the results of a blood alcohol test, ruling that it was not, as a matter of law, 'medically acceptable' because the testing procedure was performed by a biochemist. The county judge concluded that 'the law in the State of New Jersey is that no one, whether he is the finest technician, whether he is the most capable biologist, no one who is not a doctor or a registered nurse acting under the supervision of a doctor, has the right to invade the human envelope.' We granted leave to appeal on motion by the State. R. 2:2--4. We reverse.
Defendant's position is that the holdings of the United States Supreme Court in Schmerber v. California 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), and our Supreme Court in State v. Macuk, 57 N.J. 1, 268 A.2d 1 (1970), prohibit the use of the results of a blood test as evidence unless the test is performed either by a licensed physician or at his direction. We do not read either of those opinions, or others cited in support of this argument, to so hold.
In this case the blood sample of defendant (who himself is a licensed physician of this State) was obtained and analyzed by Harry Clark, the licensed director of the Pompton Medical Laboratory, Pompton Plains, which in turn is also licensed by the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners. The blood was extracted by Clark from Dr. McMaster in the emergency room of the Chilton Memorial Hospital, Pequannock Township, at the request of police officer Romanelli. There is no dispute that the blood was taken in a medically accepted environment, and defendant concedes that Clark was completely qualified to carry out the testing procedures--except for the fact that he was not asked to carry out the test by a licensed physician.
The concern of the United States Supreme Court and our own Supreme Court with respect to such testing procedures is that they be carried out under such circumstances as to protect the life and health of the individual tested. As was stated by the United States Supreme Court in Schmerber, above:
Petitioner's blood was taken by a physician in a hospital environment according to accepted medical practices. We are thus not presented with the serious questions which would arise if a search involving use of medical technique, even of the most rudimentary sort, were made by other than medical personnel Or in other than a medical environment--for example, if it were administered by police in the privacy of the stationhouse. To tolerate searches under these conditions might be to invite an unjustified element of personal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bellino
...v. Murray, 441 Pa. 22, 271 A.2d 500 (1970). To the contrary: State v. Mitchell, 245 So.2d 618 (Fla., 1971); State v. McMaster, 118 N.J.Super. 476, 288 A.2d 583 (1972). The Michigan Court has limited the implied consent law to O.U.I. cases. People v. Keen, 396 Mich. 573, 242 N.W.2d 405 (1976......
-
State v. Hudes
...Prompt action by the State was warranted as an emergency measure to minimize loss of evidence. See State v. McMaster, 118 N.J.Super. 476, 479, 288 A.2d 583 (App.Div.1971); State v. Pandoli, Supra, 109 N.J.Super. at 4, 262 A.2d 41; State v. Gillespie, 100 N.J.Super. 71, 85, 241 A.2d 239 (App......
-
Siddiq v. State
...of care as articulated by expert, blood draw was performed in reasonable manner under Fourth Amendment); State v. McMaster , 118 N.J.Super. 476, 288 A.2d 583, 584 (1972) ("The concern of the United States Supreme Court and our own Supreme Court with respect to such testing procedures is tha......
-
U.S. v. Harvey, s. 82-1298
...Some other states have held a prior arrest is not required. Devaney v. State, 259 Ind. 483, 288 N.E.2d 732 (1972); State v. McMaster, 118 N.J.Super. 476, 288 A.2d 583 (1972). In Harvey, the United States argues that, even if a prior arrest is required, there was probable cause to arrest and......