Driving under influence of alcohol; implied consent, refusal of blood or breath tests. (HB2327)

Introduced By

Del. Chris Collins (R-Winchester) with support from co-patron Del. Dave Albo (R-Springfield)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

DUI; implied consent; refusal of blood or breath tests. Amends the law on implied consent, which currently provides that a person who operates a motor vehicle upon a highway in the Commonwealth or a watercraft on the waters of the Commonwealth is deemed to have consented to having samples of his blood or breath taken to determine the alcohol or drug content of his blood upon arrest for a DUI-related offense. The bill removes breath tests from the implied consent law and provides that such tests constitute a search incident to arrest; blood tests remain subject to the implied consent law. Under current law, the unreasonable refusal of a person to submit to blood or breath tests is punished (i) for a first offense, as a civil offense with a one-year driver's license suspension; (ii) for an offense committed within 10 years of a prior offense of refusal or of other DUI-related offenses, as a Class 2 misdemeanor with a three-year driver's license suspension; and (iii) for an offense committed within 10 years of two prior offenses of refusal or of other DUI-related offenses, as a Class 1 misdemeanor with a three-year driver's license suspension. The bill eliminates the criminal penalties for refusing to submit to a blood test, making any refusal of a blood test a civil offense. The bill increases the period of license suspension for refusing to submit to a blood test within 10 years of two prior offenses to an indefinite suspension. The bill also increases the criminal penalties for refusing to submit to a breath test to a Class 1 misdemeanor for refusing to submit to a blood test within 10 years of a prior offense and increases the period of license suspension for refusing to submit to a blood test within 10 years of two prior offenses to an indefinite suspension. The bill also removes the current requirement that the person's refusal to submit to testing be unreasonable before it is subject to any penalty. The bill also extends to blood tests performed by the Department of Forensic Science pursuant to a search warrant the rebuttable presumption that a person is intoxicated based on the person's blood alcohol level demonstrated by such tests. Further, the bill allows the failure of a person to submit to a blood or breath test to be commented on by the prosecution in any trial of the person for a DUI-related offense. Currently, such failure could only be introduced as rebuttal evidence for the purpose of explaining at trial the absence of any test results. The bill also provides that an application for a search warrant to perform a blood test on a person suspected of committing a DUI-related offense shall be given priority over any other matters pending before the judge or magistrate. Finally, the bill authorizes the Attorney General to participate in appeals of civil offenses for unreasonably refusing to submit to testing under the implied consent law. This bill is in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016). Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Passed

History

DateAction
01/13/2017Presented and ordered printed 17100553D
01/13/2017Impact statement from VCSC (HB2327)
01/13/2017Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/23/2017Assigned Courts sub: Criminal Law
01/30/2017Impact statement from DPB (HB2327)
02/01/2017Subcommittee recommends reporting with substitute (11-Y 0-N)
02/03/2017Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (20-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/03/2017Committee substitute printed 17105153D-H1
02/04/2017Read first time
02/06/2017Read second time
02/06/2017Committee substitute agreed to 17105153D-H1
02/06/2017Emergency clause added
02/06/2017Engrossed by House - committee substitute HB2327H1
02/07/2017Read third time and passed House (96-Y 1-N)
02/07/2017VOTE: PASSAGE EMERGENCY (96-Y 1-N) (see vote tally)
02/08/2017Constitutional reading dispensed
02/08/2017Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
02/13/2017Impact statement from DPB (HB2327H1)
02/15/2017Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (15-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/15/2017Committee substitute printed 17105455D-S1
02/17/2017Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/17/2017Impact statement from DPB (HB2327S1)
02/20/2017Read third time
02/20/2017Reading of substitute waived
02/20/2017Committee substitute agreed to 17105455D-S1
02/20/2017Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute HB2327S1
02/20/2017Passed Senate with substitute (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/21/2017Placed on Calendar
02/21/2017Senate substitute agreed to by House 17105455D-S1 (97-Y 0-N)
02/21/2017VOTE: ADOPTION EMERGENCY (97-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/24/2017Enrolled
02/24/2017Bill text as passed House and Senate (HB2327ER)
02/24/2017Signed by Speaker
02/24/2017Signed by President
02/27/2017Impact statement from DPB (HB2327ER)
02/28/2017Enrolled Bill communicated to Governor on 2/28/17
02/28/2017G Governor's Action Deadline Midnight, March 27, 2017
03/16/2017G Approved by Governor-Chapter 623 (effective 3/16/17)
03/16/2017G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0623)

Video

This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 1 clip in all, totaling 1 minute.

Transcript

This is a transcript of the video clips in which this bill is discussed.

THAT YOU CAN'T DEAL WITH. AND THAT THE BEGINNING OF AN APPROVED STATE LIST WHICH I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IN CONTEXT AT THE PROPER AGE IN THE -- WHAT IS BEING CONVEYED IN A WORK OF LITERATURE OR POLITICAL SCIENCE THAT WE WANT TO GUT THIS KIND OF STRANGLEHOLD ON, THANK YOU. MR. LaROCK. MR. SPEAKER, I MOVE THE PENDING QUESTION.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM CAROLINE, MR. LaROCK MOVES THE PENDING AS MANY AS FAVOR THAT MOTION SA. QUESTION. THE MOTION IS AGREED TO. THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE SENATE AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO?