Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dui Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Law‑enforcement warns bill redefining 'actual physical control' could weaken DUI enforcement
Summary
SB 196, which would narrow the definition of 'actual physical control' (excluding being seated in a non‑driver seat or sleeping in a parked vehicle), drew sharp opposition from patrol troopers, county attorneys and police chiefs who said it would impede enforcement and risk more impaired driving; sponsor said an amendment is forthcoming to address concerns.
Senator Trebis opened the hearing on Senate Bill 196, which would redefine the statutory phrase 'actual physical control' and narrow circumstances in which a person can be charged with a DUI. The bill as drafted excluded people seated in any seat but the driver's and described situations (vehicle in park, person asleep or attempting to sleep, vehicle disabled) that sponsors said were not intended to be prosecutable as DUI so long as the person did not drive the vehicle to the location while intoxicated.
Proponents framed the bill as harm‑reduction: Don Cape of the Coalition for Safety and Justice said allowing an intoxicated person to remain in a parked vehicle to 'sleep it off' is a safer intermediate choice than attempting to drive while intoxicated.
A broad coalition of law‑enforcement witnesses and prosecutors opposed the draft. Captain Doug Samuelson of the Montana Highway Patrol argued the bill would 'weaken Montana's DUI laws' and produce unintended consequences, citing science that alcohol impairs sleep and that people who 'sleep it off' are likely to still be unsafe hours later. Mary Berry (chief criminal deputy county attorney) warned the proposal would remove 'actual physical control' as a prosecutorial option used especially against repeat offenders and offered practical examples where defendants moved from back seats to driving once officers left. Other opponents — including the Montana Police Protective Association, Association of Montana Troopers, county sheriffs and the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association — echoed safety and enforcement concerns and urged the committee to oppose the bill or wait for corrective amendments.
Committee members asked detailed questions about private parking lots, prosecutorial discretion, possible lesser‑included charges (such as a new statutory intermediate offense), and the sponsor's intended amendment language. Senator Trebis acknowledged the concerns, said he had requested a compromise amendment to restore 'ways of the state open to the public' language and to clarify exceptions, and asked the committee to consider the amendment when filed. The hearing closed without a committee vote.
