Connecticut Senate Bill SB00063

Connecticut 2012 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/15/12
• Refer: 2/15/12
• Report Pass: 3/1/12
• Refer: 3/12/12
• Report Pass: 3/19/12
• Refer: 4/10/12
• Report Pass: 4/17/12
• Report Pass: 4/18/12
• Engrossed: 5/2/12
• Report Pass: 5/4/12

Caption

An Act Concerning The Timing Of Tests For Blood Alcohol Levels In Operating Under The Influence Cases.

Impact

The implications of SB00063 are significant for how OUI cases are prosecuted in the state. By establishing more explicit guidelines for the collection and presentation of evidence regarding blood alcohol levels, the bill seeks to enhance the reliability of test results submitted in courts. This, in turn, could lead to a more consistent approach to handling OUI cases across law enforcement agencies, ideally resulting in fairer trials and outcomes for defendants as procedural safeguards are put in place.

Summary

SB00063 is an act concerning the timing of tests for blood alcohol levels in cases involving operating under the influence (OUI) of drugs or alcohol. The bill proposes amendments to existing statutes to clarify the circumstances under which chemical tests of a defendant's breath, blood, or urine can be administered, ensuring that such tests meet strict conditions for the results to be admissible as evidence in court. Key changes include requirements that ensure defendants have the opportunity to contact an attorney before tests are administered and that multiple tests be conducted to confirm findings in a reliable manner.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB00063 appears to be generally positive among lawmakers and law enforcement agencies, as many view the amendments as necessary improvements to ensure fairness in the judicial process. There is recognition of the need for a balance between effectively enforcing driving under the influence laws while safeguarding defendants' rights and ensuring that evidence used in prosecutions is both reliable and admissible. However, there may be concerns from civil liberties advocates regarding potential overreach or the implications of stringent regulations on individual rights during the arrest process.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the debate over the definition of 'reasonable opportunity' for defendants to contact legal counsel prior to testing, as well as the conditions under which additional tests are deemed necessary. Some stakeholders may argue that the amendments, while intending to protect rights, could complicate or delay the legal process in OUI cases. Overall, these discussions highlight the ongoing challenge of addressing public safety concerns while respecting the legal rights of individuals.