Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Safety Dui topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MDOT backs HB 70 to impose five-year revocation after DUI crashes that cause death or life-threatening injury
Summary
Chrissy Neisser, motor vehicle administrator, told the House Judiciary Committee on Jan. 29, 2025, that HB 70 would impose a five‑year revocation for drivers convicted or granted probation before judgment for DUI when the crash contributed to the death or life‑threatening injury of another person.
Chrissy Neisser, motor vehicle administrator, testified for House Bill 70 at the Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 29, 2025, proposing a five-year license revocation for individuals convicted — or granted probation before judgment — of driving under the influence if the crash contributed to another person’s death or life‑threatening injury.
Neisser said the change is intended to distinguish the most serious offenses from lesser driving‑record causes of revocation and to reduce relapse risk by extending the period before reinstatement. She cited literature saying relapse rates among people who have been sober two years can be around 40 percent and drop to about 7 percent after five years; she said the reinstatement process itself would not change, only the waiting period before a person could pursue reinstatement.
Agency testimony included data points on alcohol-related road deaths and hit-and-run crashes: Neisser said on average about 190 fatalities per year on Maryland roadways involved an alcohol‑impaired driver. She also said the state sees roughly 27,000 hit-and-run crashes annually (most property‑damage only) and that, over the last five years, 255 crashes involved a hit‑and‑run driver that contributed to 258 fatalities.
The bill would also make ignition interlock installation mandatory (“shall”) in certain circumstances tied to leaving the scene where alcohol involvement is proven as part of a revocation/reinstatement package; committee members questioned the breadth of that “shall” language because not every fatal or injurious crash is alcohol‑related.
Delegates asked about drug impairment detection and roadside tools. Neisser said there is not a single consensus equivalent to a 0.08 alcohol threshold for drug impairment; law enforcement training and specialized “green lab” outreach were described as tools to help officers identify impairment related to cannabis and other substances, but the field lacks a uniform roadside numeric threshold for drug impairment comparable to alcohol.
No committee vote was recorded; the hearing record shows questions and responses and that the committee closed testimony on HB 70 during the session.
Ending: Testimony closed after questions about interlock mandates and drug impairment detection; staff offered to provide further data to the committee.
