Senate Judiciary committee agrees to narrow bill language on court-ordered blood draws, replacing 'refuses' with 'hinders'

The Senate Judiciary Committee on April 3 discussed amendments to a DUI-related bill that would make certain conduct around court-ordered blood draws a criminal offense, directing staff to revise language to require submission when a warrant is issued and to replace the word "refuses" with "hinders" in the criminal-refusal provision.

Committee members and a testifying judge emphasized that blood draws raise different legal issues than breath tests, and they discussed how the proposed language should distinguish passive noncompliance from active obstruction so as not to criminalize a person who is merely hesitant or nonresponsive after a warrant is obtained.

Judge Sonia, a testifier during the hearing, told the committee that under Fourth Amendment analysis the warrant requirement is the baseline and consent is a separate inquiry; she noted that implied-consent doctrines commonly used for breath tests generally do not extend to blood draws. Committee counsel and members cited an existing statutory provision (referred to in the hearing as subsection 12 o 2(a)(2)) that addresses samples from incapacitated persons, saying a warrant process is still required even where the statute deems consent in narrow circumstances.

Discussion centered on two drafting options. One would insert on page 5 a duty that "the person shall submit to the collection of an evidentiary blood sample" when a warrant has been issued. The other change, on page 9 (subdivision c/d6 in the bill draft), would strike the term "refuses the collection" and instead criminalize conduct that "hinders the collection" of an evidentiary blood sample. Committee members said the latter formulation would create an action-based element (for example, actively fighting or interfering with a drawing) rather than penalizing inaction or mere hesitation.

Several senators expressed concern about overcriminalizing conduct that is already reached by other offenses (assault, disorderly conduct) and about the constitutional limits on coercing blood draws. Members said they wanted the investigatory and evidentiary processes preserved—specifically, that a person retain the procedural right to challenge the validity of a search warrant in court even if the person submits to a test.

The committee also discussed practical concerns: whether the proposed language would ensnare medical personnel (members concluded the bill targets the subject of the warrant, not doctors or nurses, and that medical ethics and standards would govern clinicians' conduct), and whether the statutory change would affect license-related sanctions tied to DUI proceedings. Committee members asked counsel to ensure the language does not broaden criminal exposure for an "apathetic" subject who passively complies or does not resist.

As a next step, the committee directed staff to draft specific language reflecting the approach discussed—adding an affirmative "shall submit" expectation on page 5 and replacing "refuses" with an action-based term such as "hinders" or "impedes" in the criminal-refusal provision on page 9—and to consult with Department of Motor Vehicles counsel about a related commercial-driver (CDL) issue that had been raised separately. The bill is expected to return to the committee with the revised wording before further action.

Ending: Committee members said the revisions aim to preserve evidence-gathering tools for DUI investigations while narrowing criminal liability to active interference with a court-ordered blood draw; timing for the amended draft was not specified in the hearing record.