Senate Judiciary subcommittee hears victims, prosecutors and experts on bills to expand blood testing and stiffen DUI penalties

A Senate Judiciary subcommittee heard hours of testimony on two proposed bills, S.52 and S.192, that would change South Carolina law on impaired driving by expanding when officers may seek blood tests, creating new felony tiers tied to bodily injury, altering ignition-interlock and license-suspension rules and adding a statutory victim-impact panel.

Supporters said the changes are aimed at reducing fatalities and addressing drug-impaired driving; critics warned about due‑process and operational burdens on state agencies. The session included victim statements, testimony from prosecutors and law-enforcement laboratory officials, comments from the Department of Motor Vehicles and filings from criminal-defense groups.

Why it matters: South Carolina legislators, prosecutors and victim advocates told the panel that existing DUI laws and collection procedures too often leave courts without evidence that would show impairment from drugs — not just alcohol — and that that gap contributes to low conviction rates and preventable deaths. Witnesses also flagged practical barriers to implementation, including laboratory capacity, DMV software limits and local hospital cooperation.

The bills and what they would change

Staff told the committee S.52 would "make comprehensive changes" to South Carolina DUI laws by creating new offenses (including second‑degree DUI resulting in bodily injury, reckless driving producing great or moderate bodily injury), broadening who may collect blood and urine samples, altering video-recording requirements and extending possible license suspensions. The staff explanation said S.192 is "similar" but would: remove the statutory requirement that a breath test be performed before other alcohol/blood testing; expand who may collect blood; require officers to make a "reasonable effort" to meet statutory evidence-collection rules; remove the "no parole" label for felony DUI resulting in death; and change some ignition-interlock and temporary alcohol license provisions.

Victims and advocacy groups

Donna Gerald, who identified herself as a family member of a DUI victim, told the subcommittee, "I am all for whatever you can do today to get drunk drivers off of South Carolina highways," and urged lawmakers to act to prevent other families' grief. Lisa Hagberg, who said her daughter was killed by a speeding, intoxicated driver, said she had to wait many hours before a blood sample was taken in that crash and urged lawmakers to "make it easy to do the right thing and impossible to do the wrong."

Stephen Burrett, director of MADD South Carolina, told senators the state needs laws that are easier to enforce and prosecute and said South Carolina ranks near the top nationally in drunk-driving deaths; he called the package "long due." Barry Barnett, the Seventh Circuit solicitor, and other prosecutors argued the bills would modernize evidence collection for contemporary drug‑involved crashes and increase conviction rates if officers could obtain blood samples (with consent or under existing warrant standards) and if courts could consider blood results alongside breath results.

Treatment, fees and ADSAP

Mara Jones, executive director of Alpha Behavioral Health Center and president of the Behavioral Service Association of South Carolina, urged the committee to protect and fund the Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program (ADSAP). Jones told the subcommittee that ADSAP — the state referral program for many DUI offenders — dates to the 1970s and that "90 percent of first time offenders ... will not reoffend when they go through some type of intervention treatment program." She said referrals to ADSAP have fallen about 23% over the last nine years in South Carolina and asked the panel to add inflationary flexibility to ADSAP fee limits (she cited an 83% cumulative inflation increase since the fee schedule was set), saying many county authorities face recruitment and retention problems on stagnant fees.

Operational concerns: SLED, DMV and hospital cooperation

Todd Huey, director of the SLED forensic toxicology laboratory, told the panel SLED supports S.52 because it would preserve the requirement that officers offer breath testing first while allowing blood draws when there is reasonable suspicion of non‑alcohol impairment; he warned that removing the breath-test step (as written in S.192) would sharply increase laboratory workload and costs. Huey gave the committee the SLED-implied-consent numbers used by the lab: the implied-consent program conducted roughly 18,000 tests in the referenced year and the state sees about a 40% refusal rate for breath testing, leaving a little over 12,000 tests that are processed and reported. SLED currently performs roughly 1,500 forensic blood toxicology analyses annually and said its turnaround time for lab testing averages about 30 days; the laboratory estimated it could absorb modest increases (SLED cited a 20% increase scenario) but not the much larger volume that would follow if breath testing were removed as the routine first test.

Lauren Phillips, director of Driver Services at the Department of Motor Vehicles, told the subcommittee the DMV issued 4,408 temporary alcohol licenses in 2024 and said the agency would need at least 12 months after enactment to make the computer and coding changes required to implement many provisions. Phillips also questioned whether the victim‑impact panel is best administered by DMV and suggested the Office of Victim Services (or the state agency that administers victim programs) might be a better fit; she noted procurement, staffing and reporting obligations that could lengthen implementation time.

Prosecutors and defense concerns

Seventh Circuit Solicitor Barry Barnett said modern drug panels are needed because many impaired‑driving crashes now involve drugs or a mix of drugs and alcohol; he described cases in which breath and urine tests were insufficient and argued that allowing trained personnel (not only hospital staff) to collect blood would remove practical barriers in rural areas. Barnett urged stiffer license suspensions for refusals, saying longer suspensions and interlock requirements raise the stakes for offenders.

Powers Price, president of the South Carolina Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and other defense representatives urged caution on provisions that would allow blood draws on "reasonable suspicion" rather than with a magistrate-issued warrant. Price cited U.S. Supreme Court precedent (Missouri v. McNeely and Birchfield v. North Dakota) and argued the exigency exception to the warrant requirement must be evaluated case by case; in Price's view, replacing warrant or probable-cause standards with a lower trigger risks constitutional challenges.

Video and Miranda questions

Prosecutors also pressed for updates to the state's video‑recording statute, saying that the law was written for in‑car video systems and has not kept pace with body cameras and multi‑camera evidence; they described cases where gaps in the statute led to suppression. Prosecutors and solicitors noted that South Carolina requires certain in‑custody advisements to be visible on video and that the statute's current text has produced evidence rulings in which footage was excluded when the video did not show both reading and defendant on camera at the same time.

What lawmakers heard on numbers and logistics

- ADSAP/behavioral providers: Jones said ADSAP referrals are down roughly 23% across nine years and urged indexing fees to inflation (she cited an 83% cumulative inflation figure for staff and costs since the fee schedule was set). - DMV: Lauren Phillips said the DMV issued 4,408 temporary alcohol licenses in calendar year 2024 and needs at least 12 months after signature to change IT systems. - SLED: the implied‑consent program ran about 18,000 tests in the most recent reporting year; approximately 40% of those subjects refuse breath testing, leaving about 12,000 processed implied‑consent tests. SLED conducts about 1,500 forensic blood toxicology tests a year and reported average lab turnaround times of roughly 30 days.

No committee votes were recorded during the hearing; senators asked staff to gather additional fiscal and operational data and witnesses offered written materials for staff review. Senator Davis, the sponsor, told the subcommittee he will follow up with legal briefs on how the bills were drafted to fit within Supreme Court precedent.

What’s next

The subcommittee heard broad support from victims' advocates, prosecutors and MADD for tightening DUI law and for adding tools to address drug‑impaired driving, while defense groups urged careful calibration to protect constitutional search‑and‑seizure rights. Agencies signaled implementation constraints: SLED warned against wholesale removal of breath testing as the routine first step, and DMV asked for at least 12 months to change its systems. Several senators asked staff to return fiscal and operational impact analyses; no votes were taken at the hearing.

"I am all for whatever you can do today to get drunk drivers off of South Carolina highways," Donna Gerald told the committee. "This is too important — our precious South Carolina lives." Senator Davis, the bill sponsor, told the panel he would supply a legal follow‑up for members explaining the bills' fit with U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

The panel did not vote on either bill during the hearing.