Committee reviews H.44 amendment to address refusal of evidentiary blood draws and creates impaired‑driving task force

The House Committee on Judiciary reviewed amendment draft 1.1 to H.44 on measures tied to impaired‑driving investigations, including a proposed criminal refusal provision for hindering or refusing an evidentiary blood draw pursuant to a search warrant and a provision directing juvenile adjudication records to the Department of Motor Vehicles.

The discussion matters because the changes would alter how prosecutors can charge people who decline a blood draw sought by warrant, clarify what juvenile court records must be forwarded to DMV, and establish a temporary task force to study ways to shorten the time suspects are held during impaired‑driving investigations.

Ben Novogrovsky, legislative council attorney, opened the committee’s review and described the document as a “strike‑all amendment,” saying, “this is what we would call a strike all amendment,” and walked members through the substituted text and cross‑references. Novogrovsky explained the new subsection added to 12 01 would read in part that “a person suspected of violating the section shall not hinder the collection of an evidentiary blood sample when a warrant for that person's blood is issued pursuant to subdivision 12 02 f 1 of this title,” and that the subsection “shall not be construed as impairing that person's right to challenge the validity of the search warrant in subsequent legal proceedings.”

Committee members and witnesses debated the key wording used to describe the prohibited conduct. Judge Tom Zona, chief superior judge, warned that the word “hinder” is defined in case law (citing State v. Stone and State v. Oren) and could raise questions, asking whether a simple verbal refusal — “no, I…