Texas Senate Bill SB840

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Introduced: 2/22/11
• Refer: 3/1/11

Caption

Relating to the issues at a hearing for a person whose driver's license is administratively suspended for refusal to consent to the taking of a specimen following an arrest for certain intoxication offenses.

Impact

If enacted, SB840 would amend the Transportation Code by delineating the specific factors that are considered at hearings for individuals with suspended licenses due to refusals. This targeted modification could change the outcomes of hearings by introducing clearer standards for assessing probable cause and other related aspects. The bill seeks to ensure that individuals have a fair opportunity to contest the administrative actions taken against them, potentially influencing the handling of intoxication cases in Texas.

Summary

Senate Bill 840 addresses the legal framework surrounding the administrative suspension of driver's licenses for individuals who refuse to submit to chemical testing after being arrested for certain intoxication offenses. The bill specifies the issues that can be raised during a hearing regarding such suspensions, most notably focusing on the existence of reasonable suspicion or probable cause, the arrest process, and the refusal of consent to take a specimen. This legislation reflects an effort to clarify procedures while ensuring that individuals' rights are considered in these situations.

Sentiment

The general sentiment around SB840 appears to be supportive of the intent to protect individual rights during the hearing process. Proponents may argue that by clarifying the issues at stake, the bill helps safeguard against wrongful suspensions based on unfounded arrests. However, there may also be concerns among law enforcement and prosecution sides about the implications this could have on prosecuting intoxication-related offenses, potentially leading to increased scrutiny of arrest procedures.

Contention

While the bill largely seeks to clarify legal procedures, notable points of contention could emerge regarding the balance between protecting individual rights and maintaining public safety. Advocates for stricter enforcement may view the bill as a potential obstacle to holding individuals accountable for intoxication offenses, while civil rights proponents might argue that the bill is a necessary step in ensuring due process. The ongoing debates in committees and among lawmakers will likely reflect these contrasting perspectives, influencing its eventual passage.