The Florida Senate
BILL ANALYSIS AND FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(This document is based on the provisions contained in the legislation as of the latest date listed below.)
Prepared By: The Professional Staff of the Committee on Criminal Justice
BILL: SB 260
INTRODUCER: Senators DiCeglie and Hooper
SUBJECT: Refusal to Submit to a Breath, Urine, or Blood Test
DATE: January 22, 2024
ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR REFERENCE ACTION
1. Shutes Vickers TR Favorable
2. Parker Stokes CJ Pre-meeting
3. FP
I. Summary:
SB 260 requires a person arrested for driving under the influence, including anyone under the
age of 21, who refuses to submit to a lawful breath test to install an ignition interlock device
approved by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV), at his or her
expense, on all vehicles he or she individually or jointly leases or owns and routinely operates,
when the person qualifies for reinstatement of a permanent or restricted driver license. The
ignition interlock device must be placed for one continuous year for a first refusal and 18
continuous months for a subsequent refusal upon reinstatement of a permanent or restricted
license.
The bill also reduces the wait time for a person to apply for a restricted license after refusing to
submit to lawful testing, from 90 days to 30 days following the date of the license suspension or
expiration of a temporary driving permit.
The bill may have a negative fiscal impact on the DHSMV associated with a projected increase
in the number of driver license suspension administrative hearings. See the “Fiscal Impact”
heading for additional details.
The bill takes effect October 1, 2024.
II. Present Situation:
Section 316.1932, F.S., provides that any person who accepts the privilege of operating a motor
vehicle within this state is deemed to have given consent to submit to an approved breath test to
determine the alcohol content of his or her breath, also referred to as the “implied consent” law.
The breath test must be incidental to a lawful arrest and administered at the request of a law
REVISED: BILL: SB 260 Page 2
enforcement officer who has a reasonable belief such person was driving or in actual physical
control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages.
1
Every state in the U.S. has implied consent laws, which are a tool used by law enforcement to
access evidence showing a person was illegally impaired while operating a motor vehicle. A
person who refuses to submit to a lawful breath test can be subject to administrative and criminal
penalties, but penalties vary among the states.
2
Refusal to Submit to a Lawful Breath Test
In Florida, failure to submit to a lawful breath test results in an administrative suspension of the
person’s driving privilege for one year for a first refusal or 18 months for a subsequent refusal.
3
Additionally, a person who refuses to submit to a breath test for a subsequent time commits a
first-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and $1,000 fine.
4
Comparatively, a first conviction of driving under the influence (DUI) can result in a fine of at
least $500, 50 hours of community service, imprisonment of no more than six months, up to one
year of probation, a court order to install an ignition interlock device for at least six continuous
months, and completion of an authorized substance abuse course.
5
The table below provides data on DUI breath testing refusal rates in Florida from 2018 to 2023.
6
Previous studies found the nationwide average rate for testing refusal at 24 percent.
7
Year Total Refusals DUI UTCs Refusal Rate
Crash-related
Refusals
2018 15,091 43,715 34.52% 4,051
2019 15,497 44,890 34.52% 4,083
2020 12,926 37,310 34.64% 3,675
2021 15,183 43,787 34.67% 4,230
2022 14,941 44,001 33.96% 4,154
2023* 11,459 32,582 35.17% 3,166
*2023 is preliminary, activity dated 1/1/2023-9/30/2023
Restricted Driver Licenses
A person whose driving privilege is suspended for refusing to submit to a lawful test of his or her
breath, urine, or blood may be able to apply for restricted driving privileges through the
1
Section 316.1932(1)(a)1.a., F.S.
2
In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court in Birchfield v. North Dakota held that the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath
tests incident to arrest, and criminalizing the refusal to submit to a breath test is designed to serve the government’s interest in
deterring drunk driving. However, warrants for blood tests are required unless there are exigent circumstances.
3
Section 322.2616(2)(b)1.a., F.S.
4
Sections 316.1939(1), F.S.
5
Section 316.193, F.S.
6
Email from Jonas Marquez, Legislative Affairs Director, DHSMV, RE: SB – 260 Refusal to Submit to a Breath, Urine or
Blood Test, (November 8, 2023) (on file with the Senate Committee on Transportation).
7
Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility, BAC Test Refusal Penalties, (2016), https://www.responsibility.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/03/BAC-Test-Refusal-Penalties-2016-2.pdf (last visited January 18, 2024). BILL: SB 260 Page 3
Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) Bureau of Administrative
Review after at least 90 days have elapsed from the date of the license suspension or expiration
of a temporary driving permit.
8,
9
However, this privilege may not be granted to a person whose
license has been suspended two or more times for testing refusal, or who refused testing
following two or more DUI convictions.
10
Furthermore, a person whose driving privilege was
suspended for an unlawful blood-alcohol or breath-alcohol level may be able to apply for
restricted driving privileges after at least 30 days have elapsed from the date of the license
suspension or expiration of a temporary driving permit.
11
Section 322.271(1)(c), F.S., defines a “business purposes only” restricted driving privilege as
limited to driving necessary to maintain livelihood, including driving to and from work,
necessary on-the-job driving, driving for educational purposes, and driving for church and
medical purposes. An “employment purposes only” restricted driving privilege is limited to
driving to and from work and necessary on-the-job driving.
Ignition Interlock Devices
An ignition interlock device is a breath alcohol analyzer connected to a motor vehicle’s ignition,
which requires a breath sample to operate the motor vehicle. Section 316.1937, F.S., requires
such devices to prohibit the vehicle from starting if the operator’s blood alcohol level is in excess
of 0.025 percent or other court-specified level.
The table below summarizes when an ignition interlock device is required in Florida.
12
DUI
Conviction
Ignition Interlock Device
Required
1st
conviction If court orders for at least 6 continuous months
1st conviction if blood-alcohol level is ≥
0.15, or minor in car
Mandatory for at least 6 continuous months
2nd conviction Mandatory for at least 1 year
2nd conviction if blood-alcohol level is ≥
0.15, or minor in car
Mandatory for at least 2 continuous years
3rd conviction Mandatory for at least 2 years
The DHSMV contracts with vendors to provide ignition interlock devices in Florida. Currently,
the DHSMV contracts with seven vendors to provide ignition interlock services.
13
The devices
must meet or exceed the current standards of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National
8
Section 322.2615(10)(a), F.S.
9
DHSMV, Application for Administrative Hearing, Form HSMV 78306 (Rev. 1/2022), available at
https://www.flhsmv.gov/pdf/forms/78306.pdf (last visited January 18, 2024).
10
Section 322.271(2)(a), F.S.
11
Section 322.2615(10)(b), F.S.
12
Section 316.193, F.S.
13
DHSMV, Ignition Interlock Program, https://www.flhsmv.gov/driver-licenses-id-cards/education-courses/dui-and-
iid/ignition-interlock-program/ (last visited January 18, 2024). BILL: SB 260 Page 4
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
14
The DHSMV oversees and monitors the
ignition interlock devices.
15
The Florida Legislature’s Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability
(OPPAGA) conducted a study researching ignition interlock devices and DUI offense recidivism
rates. The research showed that ignition interlock devices, while installed, were more effective at
reducing re-arrest rates for alcohol-impaired driving when compared to other sanctions, such as
license suspensions.
16
Similarly, NHTSA reviewed 15 studies on ignition interlock device
effectiveness and found alcohol-impaired driving recidivism rates were 75 percent lower for
drivers with ignition interlock devices installed. However, the difference in recidivism rates
largely disappeared once the device was removed.
17
The DHSMV indicates the compliance rate for individuals eligible to have an ignition interlock
device installed is almost 98 percent. Forty-six percent of individuals required to have an ignition
interlock device installed are not eligible until other sanctions on their record are cleared to allow
driving privilege eligibility.
18
Section 316.193, F.S., providing DUI penalties, requires
placement of the ignition interlock device “when the convicted person qualifies for a permanent
or restricted license.” Additionally, the DHSMV indicates that inability to afford the cost
associated with the ignition interlock device is the most persuasive barrier to required
installation.
19
According to a study distributed by NHTSA, 27 states mandate ignition interlock program
participation upon test refusal.
20
The requirements of the programs vary by state. States may
require ignition interlock device placement as a penalty for testing refusal, incident to arrest for
DUI, or to be granted restricted driving privileges following an administrative license suspension
for refusing to submit to the breath test.
III. Effect of Proposed Changes:
The bill amends ss. 316.1939, 322.2616, and 322.2715, F.S., requiring a person arrested for
driving under the influence, including anyone under the age of 21, who refuses to submit to a
lawful breath test to install a DHSMV-approved ignition interlock device, at his or her expense,
on all vehicles he or she individually or jointly leases or owns and routinely operates, when the
person qualifies for reinstatement of a permanent or restricted driver license. The ignition
interlock device must be installed for one continuous year for a first refusal and 18 continuous
months for a subsequent refusal. The requirement for a person to install an ignition interlock
14
Section 316.1938, F.S.
15
Sections 316.1938 and 316.193(11), F.S.
16
OPPAGA, Ignition Interlock Devices and DUI Recidivism Rates, Report No. 14-14, (December 2014),
https://oppaga.fl.gov/Documents/Reports/14-14.pdf (last visited January 18, 2024).
17
NHTSA, A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices, 10th Edition (2020),
https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures/deterrence/42-alcohol-ignition-interlocks (last visited January 18, 2024).
18
Email from Jonas Marquez, Legislative Affairs Director, DHSMV, RE: SB 260- Refusal to Submit to a Breath, Urine, or
Blood Test, (November 14, 2023) (on file with the Senate Committee on Transportation).
19
Supra note 14. See also V. Fiscal Impact Statement.
20
Barrett, H., Robertson, R.D., & Vanlaar, W. G. M., State of the Practice of State Alcohol Ignition Interlock Programs
Report No. DOT HS 813 394, (January 2023), https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/66102 (last visited January 18, 2024). BILL: SB 260 Page 5
device under the bill is in addition to the current requirement for his or her driving privilege to be
suspended for a specified period.
The bill amends s. 316.1932, F.S., requiring a person be told that refusing to submit to the lawful
breath test will result in the mandatory placement of an ignition interlock device for the duration
of the license suspension.
The bill also amends s. 322.2615, F.S., reducing the wait time required for failure to submit to
lawful testing for a person to apply for a restricted license, from 90 days to 30 days following the
date of suspension or expiration of a temporary driving permit.
The bill takes effect October 1, 2024.
IV. Constitutional Issues:
A. Municipality/County Mandates Restrictions:
None.
B. Public Records/Open Meetings Issues:
None.
C. Trust Funds Restrictions:
None.
D. State Tax or Fee Increases:
None.
E. Other Constitutional Issues:
None Identified.
V. Fiscal Impact Statement:
A. Tax/Fee Issues:
None.
B. Private Sector Impact:
Individuals required to install an ignition interlock device are responsible for costs of the
device. Costs vary by vendor, but can range from $70 to $170 for installation and $50 to
$120 per month for device leasing and monitoring.
21
21
LifeSaver Ignition Interlock, Ignition Interlock Costs, https://www.lifesafer.com/ignition-interlock-cost/ (last visited
January 18, 2024). BILL: SB 260 Page 6
C. Government Sector Impact:
The DHSMV receives $12 for each ignition interlock installation, which is deposited into
the Highway Safety Operating Trust Fund for operation of the Ignition Interlock Device
Program.
22
The DHSMV estimates the bill will result in a significant increase in the number of driver
license review hearings that the Bureau of Administrative Review (BAR) will have to
conduct. The department expects that it will need additional legal (hearing officers) and
administrative support staff as a result of the expected increase in formal hearings. The
department estimates that BAR will require an additional $1,135,000 in recurring funds
(for eight additional full-time hearing officers and four additional administrative
assistants) as a result of this bill.
23
Additionally, the department projects that the potential increase in ignition interlock
installations will require two additional staff positions in the Bureau of Motorists
Compliance to administer the additional workload. The department estimates that the cost
for these positions will be $133,268, recurring.
VI. Technical Deficiencies:
None.
VII. Related Issues:
The DHSMV notes that law enforcement officers will need to be educated and trained on the
provisions of the bill and implied consent warning forms and/or cards, and refusal affidavits will
need to be reviewed and updated to ensure compliance with the requirements of the bill.
VIII. Statutes Affected:
This bill substantially amends the following sections of the Florida Statutes: 316.1932, 316.1939,
322.2615, 322.2616, and 322.2715.
IX. Additional Information:
A. Committee Substitute – Statement of Changes:
(Summarizing differences between the Committee Substitute and the prior version of the bill.)
None.
22
Section 322.2715(5), F.S.
23
DHSMV, 2024 Legislative Bill Analysis: HB 39 (November 1, 2023) at p. 7 (on file with the Senate Committee on
Criminal Justice). BILL: SB 260 Page 7
B. Amendments:
None.
This Senate Bill Analysis does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill’s introducer or the Florida Senate.