Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dwi Blood Warrants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel approves changes allowing warrants for non-alcohol impairment testing after arrests
Summary
Committee recommended a due-pass for an amended bill letting officers seek search warrants for blood tests when evidence suggests drugs besides alcohol may have impaired a driver; sponsors removed cannabis-specific provisions in response to concerns.
An amended version of House Bill 106 that adjusts how law enforcement can obtain chemical tests after suspected impaired-driving incidents received a due-pass recommendation from the committee.
Sponsor Representative Reed and law-enforcement witnesses said the bill is intended to let officers obtain warrants for blood tests in cases where officers reasonably suspect impairment by controlled substances other than alcohol — for example, fentanyl, methamphetamine or opioids — and where breath tests do not capture non-alcohol drugs. The sponsor described changes made after committee concern: the amendment removed cannabis-specific language and limited the bill to substances in the Controlled Substances Act.
“Those are the amendments, and I hope this bill satisfies the committee,” Representative Reed said after describing the removal of cannabis from the warrant language. Representatives and law-enforcement witnesses repeatedly told the committee the underlying stop and probable-cause standards do not change: an officer must still have reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle and articulate facts supporting a request to expand an investigation.
Deputy and prosecution witnesses said the change was aimed chiefly at crash scenarios in which a breathalyzer is not available at the scene and officers want a court-approved blood test to document non-alcohol impairment. They explained electronic warrant procedures are often used and emphasized prosecutors must still meet court standards for warrants and for admitting toxicology evidence in court. Several committee members raised concerns about potential “fishing expeditions,” the burden on communities disproportionately affected by policing, and the time sensitivity of obtaining blood samples.
The sponsor said the amendment removed cannabis language to address testing limits and to avoid relying on a substance for which current blood tests cannot reliably show contemporaneous impairment. The amended bill retained a misdemeanor penalty for refusing chemical tests under certain circumstances and preserved replacement language to address backlog and lab capacity concerns.
The committee voted to approve the amended bill and reported it out with a due-pass recommendation; the roll call announced an outcome of 8–2 in favor.
