Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Traffic topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews bill to stiffen penalties for breath/blood-test refusals after high state refusal rate
Summary
Law-enforcement officials urged changes to New Hampshire's implied-consent refusal penalties, citing a 70–75% refusal rate; supporters said stiffer administrative license suspensions would reduce impaired driving, while civil-liberties advocates and some legislators questioned constitutional and implementation issues.
A New Hampshire Senate committee held a public hearing on SB 54, which would increase administrative penalties for drivers who refuse breath or blood testing after being stopped on suspicion of driving while intoxicated.
Sponsor testimony and law-enforcement witnesses urged the committee to address what they described as an unusually high refusal rate in New Hampshire — "about a 70 to 75 percent refusal rate," the sponsor said — compared with a typical national rate of about 20–25 percent. Department of Safety witnesses said neighboring states with stricter administrative consequences have lower refusal rates.
The bill would lengthen the administrative license suspension for a first refusal from the current six months to up to 12 months, with incentives (shorter suspension) if drivers cooperate, complete rehabilitation or take other steps. Department of Safety officials argued this change would increase the chance that drivers submit to testing, improve evidence collection and reduce impaired driving crashes.
The Department of Safety's administrative chief said EMS, police and court resources are already stretched and said reciprocity for out-of-state refusals and convictions should be included; current New Hampshire law allows recognition of out-of-state DWI convictions, but not refusals, the witness said.
Opponents raised procedural and constitutional questions. Some legislators and defense attorneys asked whether implied-consent penalties abridge search-and-seizure or self-incrimination rights. Department of Safety witnesses answered that New Hampshire treats driving as a privilege and that, under long-standing case law, implied-consent administrative penalties are permissible because drivers accept them as part of licensing. The Bureau of Hearings administrator explained the bill's four main parts and pointed to Vermont as an example of lower refusal rates tied to stronger penalties.
The hearing included discussion of judicial discretion for aggravated DUI cases; sponsors proposed preserving judicial tools to reduce sentences when appropriate. The committee did not vote and invited follow-up technical questions.
