Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Dwi Blood Testing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel debates expanding warrantable blood tests in misdemeanor DWI cases
Summary
Lawmakers heard House Bill 106, which would allow warrants for blood tests in many misdemeanor DWI arrests to test for controlled substances (excluding cannabis). Supporters said the change restores tools lost after Burchfield; critics warned of privacy, backlog and constitutional concerns.
The House Judiciary Committee heard House Bill 106, a proposal to allow warrants for blood testing in certain misdemeanor DWI arrests involving controlled substances.
Representative Reeb, sponsor of HB106, told the committee the measure would restore the ability to seek blood testing warrants after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota and state court developments limited warrant options for misdemeanor DWI cases. He said the bill removes cannabis and otherwise permits judges to issue warrants to test blood for other controlled substances after a lawful arrest.
Supporters included the Department of Public Safety and the New Mexico District Attorneys Association. Lieutenant Curtis Ward of the State Police said a blood test provides scientific evidence that supports prosecution of drug-impaired driving. Rick Tedrow, representing district attorneys, said chemical tests are persuasive evidence and the change would improve prosecutors’ ability to prove impairment in drug-related cases.
The Law Office of the Public Defender opposed the bill. Kim Chavez Cook said blood draws are intrusive searches that currently require a warrant for felony cases or cases involving injury; she warned extending warrants to misdemeanors risks privacy intrusion and would increase lab burdens and backlogs. The public defender argued prosecutors can often secure DWI convictions without chemical tests using video, admissions, and drug recognition expert testimony.
Members asked how the proposal would interact with Birchfield, implied-consent rules, the existing aggravated-refusal penalties for breath tests, and the practical burdens on rural communities and medical personnel. Supporters said the bill preserves a warrant requirement and requires judicial oversight; proponents stressed the change would be used to pursue evidence, not to eliminate judicial safeguards.
No committee vote on HB106 was recorded during this hearing. Committee members requested more detail on lab capacity, training, and how the change would be implemented in rural areas.
