"Mateo's Law" would require on‑scene impairment testing after fatal or life‑threatening crashes
Loading...
Summary
House Bill 114 would require officers to test all drivers involved in crashes that cause death or life‑threatening injury, aiming to remove officer discretion and preserve time‑sensitive evidence; supporters included MADD and a victim's mother, while members questioned testing technology limits and a substantial fiscal note.
Delegate Nick Allen testified for House Bill 114, known in testimony as "Mateo's Law," which would require alcohol and drug testing for any driver involved in a crash that causes death or life‑threatening injury. "This bill simply removes the discretion portion in the case of fatal accidents or accidents involving life threatening injuries and requires the testing of all drivers involved," Allen said, adding the goal is to reduce bias and increase accountability.
Kurt Erickson of the Washington Regional Alcohol Program told the committee that Maryland has one of the highest percentages of surviving drivers not tested in fatal crashes and cited National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data and Maryland Highway Safety Office figures to argue the state is missing critical data. "With nearly 9 out of 10 surviving drivers in Maryland's deadliest crashes not tested for alcohol and or drugs," he said, the state lacks integral information to address impaired‑driving causes.
Brianna Clark Braverman of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Sherrill Green, the mother of the bill's namesake Matteo, urged passage. Green recounted her son's April 6, 2024 crash, saying "No sobriety tests were given at the scene" and that hospital testing later showed the driver was twice the legal limit; she said the law would ensure timely evidence collection and fairness for victims.
Committee members raised technical and constitutional questions: delegates asked whether roadside or hospital testing can reliably detect cannabis and other drugs, whether blood draws implicate Fourth Amendment search‑warrant jurisprudence, and noted a fiscal estimate from state police of more than $1,000,000 for testing kits and supplies. Supporters said the bill is drafted to work with the current implied‑consent framework and that technology and procedure questions will require implementation discussions.
The hearing closed without a committee vote; members signaled interest in working on the bill's fiscal and technical details in follow‑up.
