Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House panel debates broad bill to criminalize giving drugs without consent; members worry about breadth
Summary
Representative Neil Durham sponsored HB 174 to criminalize administering a wide range of drugs (Schedules 1–5, alcohol, diphenhydramine) without consent. Advocates for domestic‑violence survivors supported restrictions; several committee members raised concerns that the bill is overly broad and could criminalize common parental, medical or accidental exposures.
Representative Neil Durham opened the HB 174 hearing by recounting concern that Montana lacked a statute clearly making it a crime to administer drugs without consent. He said the bill would expand earlier, narrower legislation to cover a broader set of substances and added exceptions for medical providers, parents and guardians and an explicit carve‑out for emergency use of naloxone.
Informational and advocacy witnesses included Kelson Young of the Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence and a public‑defender representative who stood available for questions. Young said the prior session’s bill specifically targeted drugs used to facilitate sexual assault and explained that the 2023 provision had been narrowly tailored to that risk. Several committee members asked whether the bill would criminalize the nonconsensual administration of over‑the‑counter medicines such as diphenhydramine (Benadryl), common nonprescription schedule‑5 products, or accidental/ambiguous exposures such as a mislabeled punch bowl or shared snacks laced with THC. Durham said his intent is to criminalize nonconsensual administration that produces effects and noted parental administration of valid prescriptions is not an intended target, but he acknowledged the language may require amendment to protect ordinary caregiving and medical practice.
Representative Howell and others pressed on operational issues: how the statute would treat parental consent for routine medications, whether ambulatory or implied consent (e.g., emergency medical care) is covered, and how county attorneys would charge ambiguous cases. Advocates and the sponsor described scenarios—daycare providers giving sedatives to children without parental consent, or malicious actors slipping incapacitating substances into drinks—as motivating the bill.
Committee members asked staff and witnesses whether particular categories of common over‑the‑counter products would create unintended criminal exposure; Durham suggested technical amendments and invited input from legal and medical staff. The chair closed the HB 174 hearing; no committee action was taken in the session transcript.
