Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the DWI Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to increase license-suspension penalties for chemical-test refusal
Summary
Senate Bill 54 would lengthen administrative license suspensions for drivers who refuse chemical tests and broaden use of out-of-state convictions and refusals in New Hampshire’s administrative process; the Department of Safety and state police testified in support while defense attorneys opposed some provisions.
Sen. William Gannon introduced Senate Bill 54, which would increase administrative license-suspension periods tied to refusals of chemical testing and allow out-of-state convictions and administrative refusals to count as prior offenses in New Hampshire.
Ryan McFarland of the Department of Safety’s Bureau of Hearings told the committee New Hampshire has one of the nation’s highest chemical-test refusal rates (citing roughly 68–70% in recent years) and outlined the bill’s four main elements: raise the first-refusal administrative suspension from 180 days to one year; raise subsequent-refusal suspension from two years to three years; permit out-of-state convictions and administrative refusals to be used as priors for New Hampshire administrative action; and provide a six-month reduction in the administrative suspension for a driver who pleads guilty to a DWI to encourage cooperation and treatment.
Trooper Sam Provenza of the New Hampshire State Police testified in support, describing the dangers associated with refusals and urging stronger administrative consequences to deter refusals. “We are looking to add some equity to the statute by saying we are asking to increase the penalties for refusals but if you do the right thing we want to also add some equity by suspending that jail time,” Trooper Provenza said, referencing proposed discretion for judges when an impaired driver cooperates and submits to testing.
Defense counsel argued against significant increases in administrative penalties and raised constitutional and due-process concerns. Attorney Robert Moses, representing the New Hampshire Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, told the committee that longer administrative suspensions risk becoming punitive rather than remedial, noted problems with the information provided to arrestees on the ALS/DSM form, and warned of disparate impacts for commercial drivers whose consequences differ on a commercial license.
The committee did not take a committee vote at the hearing. Committee members sought clarification on administrative versus criminal consequences and on interstate reporting of convictions; witnesses said state DMVs already exchange conviction and administrative-suspension data.
Ending: No committee vote was taken; sponsors and law-enforcement witnesses signaled support while defense counsel urged caution on constitutional and due-process implications.
