Senate Judiciary probes H.44 language on DUI blood draws after constitutional, medical ethics concerns

Witnesses at the Senate Judiciary hearing reviewed H.44, a DUI bill with multiple amendments. The central dispute at the hearing concerned language in the House version that criminalizes refusal to "submit to the collection of an evidentiary blood sample" and a separate technical drafting concern about a "masking" provision tied to Federal Motor Carrier Safety rules.

Wade Cochran, who identified himself as director of enforcement at "CAC and DMV" for the record, asked the committee to adjust wording on a masking provision (citing 49 CFR 384.226) and pointed the group to specific lines in the House version. Cochran said his office supports most of the bill but recommended the drafting change to avoid unintended consequences.

A legal adviser to the committee (referred to in the transcript as "Attorney Paul") raised constitutional concerns. Counsel argued that criminalizing a person—s verbal refusal to consent to a blood draw could amount to compelled speech and conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court—s Birchfield v. North Dakota line of cases, which treats warrantless blood draws differently from breath tests. The adviser said Birchfield permits criminal penalties for refusing breath testing but requires a warrant for blood draws, and that statutes that effectively force a person to say "I consent" could raise First Amendment and Fourth Amendment problems.

Dennis Friedman, a state resource prosecutor who described his role as a type of state prosecutor, told the committee the bill aims to differentiate refusal to comply with a lawful warrant from obstruction or felony charges and to keep refusal penalties within DUI sanctions (which typically carry rehabilitative options). Friedman said the state's reading is that once a judge issues a warrant for blood, the subsequent request to obtain blood is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and refusal may properly be criminalized under DUI penalties rather than prosecuted as obstruction.

Ben Wilbur Grassi of the legislative council briefed the committee on the House intent: members wanted a statutory option that would not escalate evidence‑collection obstruction into felony charges in situations where an officer holds a warrant to draw blood. Grassi said the House language was intended to keep warranted refusal within the DUI statutory scheme rather than triggering separate felony prosecutions.

Witnesses and committee members also discussed operational problems: police often rely on private health‑care providers to perform blood draws, and some providers decline to draw blood absent a patient—s consent even when law enforcement holds a warrant. Testimony cited state approaches that use contracted labs, trained police phlebotomists or EMTs to ensure evidence collection. Committee counsel noted the federal masking rules affect commercial driver's license holders differently and pointed to one‑year suspensions under Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration rules for CDL holders convicted of DUI.

Chief Superior Judge Tom Zonay warned that if the Legislature enacts a statute criminalizing certain forms of noncooperation, courts will inevitably be asked to decide fine‑grained questions such as whether silent nonresponse constitutes a criminal refusal and how that standard compares to a person who physically resists a draw. Zonay suggested that statutory language, if adopted, should use carefully chosen verbs (he recommended "hinder" as a commonly used statutory term) because the courts will parse that language.

No vote or final legislative action on H.44 occurred at the hearing; committee members asked for additional legal review and for witnesses to return with clarifying information about health‑care ethics and operational options for obtaining blood evidence under warrant.