The main consideration for the drawing of bodily fluids in New Jersey DWI cases is the reasonableness of the methods employed and the medically acceptable manner used to obtain these samples.

In New Jersey, the case law regarding this issue emanates from Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966):

Similarly, we are satisfied that the test chosen to measure petitioner's blood alcohol level was a reasonable one. Extraction of blood samples for testing is a highly effective means of determining the degree to which a person is under the influence of alcohol. See Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. at 352 U. S. 436, n. 3. Such tests are a commonplace in these days of periodic physical examination,  and experience with them teaches that the quantity of blood extracted is minimal, and that, for most people, the procedure involves virtually no risk, trauma, or pain. Petitioner is not one of the few who on grounds of fear, concern for health, or religious scruple might prefer some other means of testing, such as the "Breathalyzer" test petitioner refused, see n 9, supra. We need not decide whether such wishes would have to be respected.

Finally, the record shows that the test was performed in a reasonable manner. 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 a 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 risk of infection and pain.

In State v. Cryan, 363 N.J. Super. 442 (App. Div. 2003), the New Jersey Appellate Divsion also made a ruling on the issue of drawing blood from a defendant who objected because of his fear of needles:

There is also strong support in the record for the Law Division's finding that
defendant's refusal to consent to the taking of his blood for BAC analysis was an
intentional and calculated act designed to prevent law enforcement authorities from obtaining conclusive evidence of his intoxication. His proffered explanation for his refusal, his alleged fear of needles, is patently specious in light of the medical treatment he received without objection at the emergency room. In this context, defendant's refusal to consent to the blood test was properly considered by the trial court as evidence of a consciousness of guilt. That is, that defendant believed himself to be intoxicated and that an analysis of his blood would have confirmed this.

Where a sample of blood has been drawn from a defendant and results or readings were
obtained, a per se DWI violation can be proven by the State, using the same observations
described above and by also introducing the laboratory report containing the blood test results.

The proofs for the admissibility of blood test results, while similar to those for chemical
breath testing, will require some additional documentation. As with chemical breath test results, the results or readings obtained from blood tests have been deemed to be admissible, as having met the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof, if the State satisfies the standard of evidence for the foundational evidentiary criteria of “no greater than clear and convincing evidence.” Those foundational criteria are: (1) judicial notice of the scientific reliability and accuracy of the instrument used to analyze or test the blood sample; (2) the lab technician was properly trained; (3) the instrument used for the analysis or testing was operating properly; (4) the lab tech used the instrument in accordance with their training.

In addition, the State will also be required to establish that the blood sample was drawn in
a medically acceptable manner, by a person qualified to perform that function. If the police
officer observed the blood sample being drawn by another person, such as a medical
professional, it is not required that the medical professional appear and testify. Nor is it required that the medical professional comply with the affidavit provisions of N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-10 or -11. State v. Casele, 198 N.J. Super. 462, 467-8 (App. Div. 1985), citing with approval State v. Rypkema, 191 N.J. Super. 388, 392-3 (Law Div. 1983); State v. Burns, 159 N.J. Super. 539, 544 (App. Div. 1978); State v. Woomer, 196 N.J. Super. 583, 585-7 (App. Div. 1984).

A defendant has no right to refuse to allow blood to be drawn as long as the police or law
enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that the blood sample will contain evidence of alcohol and/or drugs. Reasonable force to obtain a blood sample may be used, subject to the limitations set forth in State v. Ravotto, 169 N.J. 227, 250-1 (2001), rev’g. 333 N.J. Super. 247 (App. Div. 2000).

When a defendant, in a DWI prosecution, was also the victim of some injury sustained in
a motor vehicle accident, the defendant’s blood is often drawn by hospital personnel for medical purposes. The results of any analysis done by the hospital is generally protected by the Physician-Patient privilege. N.J.R.E. §506(b). In the event that there is an evidentiary need for the results of blood analysis, performed by a hospital for non-evidential purposes, on a blood sample taken from a defendant who has been charged with DWI, those results may be obtained by use of a subpoena duces tecum. A Subpoena duces tecum can be issued by a Judge of a Municipal Court upon a showing that the police have a reasonable basis to believe that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. State v. Dyal, 97 N.J. 229 (1984). Those results may be entered into evidence under N.J.R.E. §803(c)(6).

The issue of judicial notice of the scientific reliability of the instruments used to test a
blood sample, as a foundational criterion, has been settled, and is no longer an issue in dispute. State v. Blair, 45 N.J. 43 (1965) relying on State v. Alexander, 7 N.J. 585 (1951), cert. den. 343 U.S. 908 (1952). Likewise, the admissibility of blood test results is no longer in dispute, since blood has been deemed non-testimonial (State v. Oliveri, 336 N.J. Super. 244 (App. Div. 2001); State v. Weller, 225 N.J. Super. 274, 281-282 (Law Div. 1986) on remand from State v. Flynn, 103 N.J. 446 (1986) relying upon the holding in State v. Matulewicz, supra.) and it does not rise to the level of a Constitutional issue. See, Breithaupt v. Abrams, 352 U.S. 432 (1957), 77 S.Ct. 408, 1 L.Ed.2d 448 (1957) and Schmerber v. Calif., 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), both of which have been adopted by the decisional law of New Jersey. Moreover, blood test analysis is not subject to the requirements set forth in State v. Simbara, 135 N.J. 37 (2002) on the grounds that the laboratory analysis documents pertaining to the testing of blood for the presence of alcohol are not proffered under the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19 and, unlike the analysis of CDS, our Courts have determined that the analysis of blood for the presence of alcohol does not require the presence of the lab technician to authenticate or testify to the analysis processes. Ibid