House committee advances bills to allow roadside oral‑fluid testing for suspected drugged driving

Chair Beagle called the House Government Operations Committee to order and the panel advanced two bills (House Bills 4390 and 4391, substitute H‑2) that would allow police to use preliminary oral‑fluid screening at the roadside and to collect oral‑fluid samples for laboratory testing instead of routine blood draws.

The bills are sponsored by Chair Beagle (Chair, House Government Operations Committee) and Representative Julie Rogers. Chair Beagle and Representative Rogers told the committee the package is intended to improve roadway safety by giving officers a non‑invasive, rapid tool to document recent drug use when they observe signs of impairment.

The measures would amend the Michigan Vehicle Code to permit preliminary oral‑fluid testing on the roadside and to allow oral‑fluid specimens to be submitted to laboratories for confirmatory analysis as an alternative to transporting a suspected impaired driver to a medical facility for a blood draw.

Supporters told the committee that oral fluid has operational advantages. Tom Chapman, a member of the National Transportation Safety Board, said the NTSB’s 2022 recommendation calls on states to permit oral‑fluid collection, screening and testing to detect drug use by drivers. He said oral fluid collection is “rapid and less invasive,” allows samples to be collected sooner after a stop, and is “less likely to be susceptible to alteration than urine.”

Kristen Burke of the Society of Forensic Toxicologists summarized scientific findings from pilot projects and laboratory comparisons and said oral‑fluid screening devices and laboratory testing show good concordance with blood testing when used as part of a full impairment investigation. Burke said roadside screening devices typically detect parent drug compounds and are designed to indicate recent use; laboratory testing of oral fluid can provide a broader panel for confirmatory purposes.

Chief Troy Meeter (chief of police, local community in Saginaw County) and other law‑enforcement witnesses described how the testing was used in Michigan pilot programs. They said a typical roadside device yields a positive/negative result in about five minutes. Officers would continue to use standard impairment assessment steps (vehicle in motion, personal contact, field sobriety testing, DRE evaluation) and the oral‑fluid screen would serve as corroborating evidence in that sequence.

Advocates who testified included Brian Swift, an advocate who described a family tragedy that motivated earlier Michigan pilot legislation (Public Acts 242 and 243 of 2016). Swift urged lawmakers to restore and expand the tool statewide.

Opponents raised concerns about test accuracy, false positives and data privacy. Gabby Dresner and Kyle Milwaukee of the ACLU said the pilot produced both false positives and false negatives and asked for stronger data‑privacy protections and uniform laboratory retention and handling rules in the bill text. ACLU witnesses also noted that presence of a drug does not by itself indicate impairment and urged continued emphasis on behavioral roadside sobriety testing.

Committee members questioned how the devices work and how results compare with laboratory blood testing. Witnesses said: - Handheld roadside devices detect a limited panel (commonly methamphetamine/amphetamines, cocaine, opioids, benzodiazepines and the parent form of THC) and return a preliminary positive/negative in roughly five minutes; the devices do not measure impairment level. - Oral‑fluid laboratory confirmatory testing can analyze a much larger panel of substances; several witnesses said lab turnaround for confirmatory results can be about 24 hours. - THC (Delta‑9 THC) concentrations in peripheral blood fall rapidly; witnesses cited studies showing substantial drops in Delta‑9 concentrations within about 30 minutes to 90 minutes after use, which supports collecting a specimen as close in time to the stop as possible. - The roadside device is not intended to replace field sobriety assessments or probable‑cause determinations; witnesses described the device as corroborative evidence used alongside observed cues and DRE evaluations.

Civil‑liberties witnesses asked the committee to add statutory limits on data use and retention; forensic and law‑enforcement witnesses said laboratories and agencies usually follow strict procedures but that written, uniform safeguards in statute would address the ACLU’s concerns.

Committee action and votes: - The committee adopted substitute H‑2 for House Bill 4391 by roll call (5‑0). - The committee voted to report House Bill 4390 with recommendation (5‑0). - The committee voted to report House Bill 4391 as substitute H‑2 with recommendation and referred it to the Committee on Rules (5‑0).

What the bills do not do: neither the preliminary roadside screen nor the handheld device is treated in the testimony as an evidentiary blood test; witnesses repeatedly said the roadside screen is a preliminary tool and that laboratory confirmatory testing would be used for evidentiary purposes if needed. Several witnesses also emphasized that detecting a drug in a bodily sample is not, by itself, proof of legal impairment — courts consider the totality of the roadside observations and the confirmatory laboratory analysis when cases proceed.

Next steps: House Bill 4391 (substitute H‑2) was referred to the House Committee on Rules for further action; House Bill 4390 was reported by the Government Operations Committee with recommendation. Sponsors and witnesses asked lawmakers to consider adding statutory language on laboratory panels, data retention and privacy to address civil‑liberties concerns raised during testimony.