House sponsor argues for warrants or consent for police blood draws in HB 43

SALT LAKE CITY — On Jan. 24 the House considered House Bill 43, a measure described by its sponsor as clarifying that blood draws by law enforcement generally require a warrant or the individual's consent.

The sponsor (name not stated in the transcript) told members the bill is broader than drunk-driving contexts and would apply to any law-enforcement situation in which an officer seeks a blood draw — on the road, at public parks, in emergency rooms or elsewhere. The sponsor argued that modern electronic-warrant systems make it feasible to obtain a warrant quickly and cited Utah Highway Patrol figures indicating an average warrant-issuance time of about 10 minutes for a breath/blood warrant.

According to the sponsor's floor remarks, the bill seeks to "clean up" statutory language by moving certain authority from the Department of Health to the Insurance Department in other contexts and, for blood draws specifically, to ensure that warrants are sought rather than relying on informal or nonconsensual draws in most cases. The sponsor said organizations including the Utah Highway Patrol and civil-rights groups had testified in committee in support of the approach.

Summation was waived on the floor and voting was opened and closed; the clerk recorded that the vote occurred (floor transcript indicates the vote process completed on HB 43). The transcript does not record a roll-call tally for HB 43 in the excerpt provided.

Next steps: the bill proceeded through floor consideration; for recorded vote counts and amendment text, the official House journal or bill packet should be consulted.