Driving under the influence: blood tests.
The passage of AB2717 alters existing DUI laws by modifying how consent for chemical testing is defined and enforced. The bill reinforces that individuals arrested for DUI are deemed to consent to blood, breath, or urine tests for alcohol or drugs. Importantly, the legislation clarifies that failure to submit to these tests can result in administrative revocation or suspension of driving privileges by the Department of Motor Vehicles, allowing for a more consistent approach to enforcement across the state.
Assembly Bill No. 2717, authored by Lackey, focuses on amendments to the Vehicle Code specifically concerning driving under the influence (DUI) offenses. The bill aligns with the 2016 Supreme Court ruling in Birchfield v. North Dakota, which stated that while warrantless breath tests are permissible, warrantless blood tests are not. As such, AB2717 seeks to eliminate criminal penalties for individuals who refuse to take a blood test following a DUI arrest, reiterated during deliberations that these individuals can still face administrative consequences regarding their driving privileges.
Discussions surrounding AB2717 highlighted a generally supportive sentiment towards its aim of conforming state law to federal judiciary standards. Advocates believe the bill protects individual rights while ensuring public safety through proper DUI enforcement. Detractors, however, raised concerns that removing criminal repercussions for unjustified blood test refusals might embolden some individuals to evade accountability for their actions on the road, potentially jeopardizing public safety.
The notable point of contention regarding AB2717 arises from the balance it attempts to strike between upholding constitutional rights and ensuring effective law enforcement. Critics argue that by removing criminal penalties for refusing blood tests, the bill may inadvertently reduce the perceived seriousness of DUI offenses. Supporters counter that aligning state law with the Birchfield ruling prevents unlawful penalization and underscores the importance of responsible testing practices in DUI cases.