Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the DUI Reporting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances bill to allow hospital reporting of crash test results after long debate
Summary
After extensive floor debate and amendment, the Senate moved SB 86 forward to third reading. The bill permits (but does not require in its final form) hospitals to report certain test results from motor‑vehicle crash victims to law enforcement; key questions concerned 'may' vs. 'shall', drug testing language, and privacy/insurance implications for passengers.
The Utah Senate debated Senate Bill 86 at length before advancing the measure to the third‑reading calendar. Senator Howe (sponsor) said SB 86 was intended to increase the prosecution of DUI cases by allowing health‑care providers to report evidentiary test results obtained during treatment of crash victims.
Senator Howe framed the bill around prosecution gaps for hospitalized DUI suspects, citing studies showing low prosecution rates for hospitalized drivers and arguing that timely access to blood‑alcohol evidence could increase accountability and treatment options. He said the bill would "give DUI a crime parity with other serious crimes" by placing reporting for serious crashes on par with existing injury reporting duties.
Opponents and several senators raised concerns about language that in committee had been changed from a mandatory "shall" to a permissive "may," and about an amendment that deleted drug‑testing reporting because emergency tests can be inaccurate or impractical during critical care. Senator Hilliard pressed that making reporting optional weakens the bill; he moved to restore mandatory reporting but the floor did not sustain that amendment after a division vote. Senators also debated whether the bill would unfairly expose passengers to insurance or employment penalties if their test results were reported and whether requiring physicians to determine who the driver was at the scene would impose an unreasonable burden during emergency care.
Supporters emphasized the bill was narrowly aimed at crash victims and would allow law enforcement to make prosecutorial decisions; the Utah Medical Association and Utah Hospital Association had expressed concern about mandatory reporting but welcomed the committee compromise that left the provision permissive and removed drug reporting. After floor votes on multiple amendments — including the deletion of the drug reporting clause and a failed attempt to limit reporting to operators only — the clerk announced the bill would be sent to the third‑reading calendar by recorded vote (floor record shows a majority in favor with reported tally of ayes and nays).
SB 86’s next steps include any final amendments on third reading, further work to reconcile reporting requirements with existing injury‑reporting statutes, and potential committee follow‑up to address technical concerns raised on the floor.
