Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Implied Consent topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Judiciary advances SB 620, raising administrative suspensions for breath‑test refusals
Summary
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted to pass SB 620 as amended, increasing administrative license suspension (ALS) for first refusal to 12 months and to three years for subsequent refusals; supporters cited high refusal rates and safety gains while some legal experts warned of constitutional and CDL‑notification concerns.
The Senate Judiciary Committee on the record voted to pass Senate Bill 620 as amended, a measure that would lengthen administrative license suspensions for drivers who refuse chemical testing after a DWI stop.
The committee adopted an amendment that raises the administrative suspension for a first refusal to 12 months and to three years for subsequent refusals. Committee members moved the amended bill to the consent calendar and passed it in a voice vote; the transcript does not record a roll‑call tally.
Supporters from the Department of Safety told the panel the change aims to reduce New Hampshire’s high refusal rate and bring administrative penalties closer to criminal consequences for serious intoxication. "This is a public policy issue that must match our investment," Eddie Edwards, assistant commissioner at the Department of Safety, told the committee, urging stronger implied‑consent rules and broader prevention and treatment measures.
Lieutenant Christopher Storm, testifying for state police, said the state’s refusal rate is far above the national average and recommended longer suspensions to deter refusal. "We are almost 70% compared to a national average of 24%," he said.
Sandra Morrell, the state’s traffic‑safety resource prosecutor, told senators that many other states use 12‑month administrative suspensions and that SB 620 remains an administrative (not criminal) regime. "All of the statutes that are listed on page 3 are only an administrative license suspension," she said, noting that administrative penalties can coexist with criminal prosecutions and treatment programs.
Defense counsel raised implementation concerns, particularly for commercial drivers and constitutional limits on administrative penalties. Attorney Robert Moses said many commercial drivers do not see specific CDL penalties on the ALS form and warned that a one‑year rule could cause job loss. "If I had known, then, I would have blown quite simply," Moses said, describing how clearer notice could affect choices at the roadside.
Committee members questioned constitutionality and the potential for the administrative regime to be considered punitive rather than remedial. Moses urged caution and suggested criminalization of refusals as an alternative approach used in some states; Morrell and Department witnesses replied that comparably long ALS terms exist elsewhere and that the bill includes treatment and interlock options for high‑BAC offenders.
The committee recorded the amendment (labeled 0011S in the committee discussion) and then passed the bill as amended by voice vote; the transcript indicates the motion and an affirmative voice response from members but does not provide a roll‑call breakdown.
Next steps: SB 620 was placed on the committee’s consent calendar and will move to the Senate floor under that status for further consideration. The committee did not record a roll‑call vote in the hearing transcript.
