Subcommittee hears debate on Senate Bill 52 to expand blood testing and clarify videotaping rules in DUI cases

The Criminal Law Subcommittee, chaired by Jeff Johnson, heard testimony this morning on Senate Bill 52, a measure that would make blood the preferred biological sample in suspected drug‑involved driving cases and codify modern videotaping practices for roadside DUI investigations.

Solicitor Barry Barnett (Seventh Circuit) told members the bill is needed after recent felony DUI deaths. "I just got done this weekend dealing with a felony DUI death, 2 young children," Solicitor Barnett said, arguing prosecutors and juries need access to in‑car and body‑worn video and to blood testing for active substances rather than urine, which he said only shows presence.

Prosecutors and trainers said blood testing is more reliable for measuring active drug levels. Sarah Lee Draldy, a 26‑year veteran prosecutor and trainer, called blood "the absolute best evidence," saying it shows what was circulating in a person's system at the time and reduces reliance on dated urine results. Jennifer Wells added that video evidence "keeps our law enforcement officers honest" and helps resolve cases.

Members and witnesses debated how the change would work in practice. Solicitor Barnett and others said blood draws for felony DUIs currently require a search warrant in many areas and that hospitals in some circuits refuse to perform legal draws, forcing officers and families to travel. Barnett noted local variations and suggested expanding the pool of qualified individuals who can draw blood, including trained phlebotomists or paramedics, while acknowledging medical procedure and training concerns.

Defense‑side witnesses and some legislators warned about roadside blood draws and training. Stan Overby, a former DUI prosecutor now in private practice, said the bill as written could allow roadside draws "in its absolute loosest form" and urged higher training standards for officers and for anyone who performs blood draws. Representative Robbins and others stressed the need to define who qualifies as a phlebotomist and warned against allowing minimal online certifications to substitute for medical competency.

The panel also discussed how to handle drug impairment standards. Representative Bailey asked whether numerical thresholds for drugs—like the 0.08 standard for alcohol—exist; witnesses and Solicitor Barnett said no uniform statewide numeric standard currently applies and that toxicologists assess impairment on a case‑by‑case basis, noting that some states have numeric THC thresholds.

Victims’ advocates urged the committee to keep DUI deaths classified as violent crimes. Karen Smith of the South Carolina Crime Victims Council described losing her son to a drunk driver and opposed language that would reclassify violent DUI killings as nonviolent offenses.

No formal votes were taken. Members repeatedly flagged implementation questions—training, hospital cooperation, who performs blood draws, and how juries should be instructed on drug impairment—and indicated staff and stakeholders will need to resolve those details as the bill proceeds through budget and committee processes.