Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dwi Refusal Penalties topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Law-enforcement urges stiffer penalties for breath-test refusals as refusal rate remains high
Summary
Troopers and prosecutors told the committee New Hampshire’s post-arrest breath-test refusal rate is substantially higher than national averages and that HB 466 would increase administrative license-suspension lengths and address out-of-state prior convictions to reduce repeat refusal and impaired-driving fatalities.
State police and safety officials urged stiffer administrative penalties for motorists who refuse post-arrest chemical testing, telling the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee that refusal undermines impaired-driving prosecutions and public safety. House Bill 466 would increase administrative license-suspension lengths for refusals, count out-of-state DUI convictions and refusals when determining subsequent penalties, and allow reductions of the suspension for defendants who plead guilty and complete the impaired-driver care management program.
Lieutenant Chris Storm of the Division of State Police said New Hampshire’s refusal rate is far above national figures. "In the past three years," he said, "our refusal rate was about 68–70 percent," while national refusal rates are generally near 25 percent, testimony showed. Storm and Ryan McFarland of the Department of Safety’s Bureau of Hearings said the bill raises a first-refusal administrative suspension from six months to one year and would raise subsequent suspensions to three years in some circumstances.
The bill also addresses aggravated DWIs and mandatory jail sentences. McFarland said the measure would allow courts discretion to suspend the mandatory jail term for a person who submitted to testing and registered a very high BAC (0.16 or greater), arguing that preserving some judicial discretion may encourage cooperation with testing.
Alexandria Morel, traffic‑safety resource prosecutor for the attorney general’s office, testified in support and described how prosecutors and defense counsel handle cases without chemical tests. Morel told lawmakers that, in her experience as a public defender, lack of a chemical result often causes cases to resolve with reduced or dismissed charges, and she urged stiffer consequences for refusals to better reflect the seriousness of impaired-driving crimes.
Opponents raised constitutional concerns. Witness Yaakov Abayuhov said that strong administrative penalties for refusal improperly shift burdens and can coerce incriminating evidence, and he warned of collateral harms in rural areas where license loss can be a significant hardship.
Committee members pressed witnesses about proof in refusal cases, the role of body and cruiser cameras in establishing probable cause, and how changes could affect enforcement and court workload. No committee vote was recorded during the hearing.
