HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 1577

BYRepresentatives Zellinsky, Schmidt, Meyers, B. Williams, Patrick, Armstrong, Haugen, Brekke, Sanders, Pruitt and Holm

Permitting urine testing to determine drug presence in persons arrested for driving under the influence of liquor or drugs.

House Committe on Judiciary

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (16)

      Signed by Representatives Armstrong, Chair; Crane, Vice Chair; Appelwick, Brough, Hargrove, P. King, Lewis, Locke, Meyers, Moyer, Padden, Patrick, Schmidt, Scott, Wang and Wineberry.

Minority Report:  Do not pass.  (1)

      Signed by Representative Belcher.

House Staff:Bill Perry (786-7123)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY FEBRUARY 4, 1988

BACKGROUND:

The state's Implied Consent Law provides that every person who drives in this state has agreed to the testing of his or her breath or blood for alcohol whenever an arresting officer has reasonable grounds to believe the driver is under the influence of liquor.  Failure to submit to the test in such a circumstance results in the loss of driving privileges, whether or not there is a subsequent criminal conviction for DWI.  The fact that a person has refused a test may be admitted in evidence at a trial on the DWI charge.

Except in specified circumstances, testing done by or at the direction of the arresting officer under the Implied Consent Law is to be of the breath only.  Blood tests may be taken with the driver's consent if the driver has physical limitations that make him or her unable to give a breath sample, or if there is no breath testing equipment available at the medical facility where a driver has been taken for treatment of injuries.  Blood tests may be administered without the driver's consent if the driver is dead or unconscious or under arrest for vehicular homicide or assault, or if the driver was involved in an accident that injured another person seriously enough that there is a reasonable likelihood he or she will die.  Blood tests must be administered by medical personnel.  The arrested person has the right to arrange for his or her own additional testing of blood or breath.

The results of a blood or breath test for alcohol, even if it does not reach the statutorily defined level for DWI, may be admitted in evidence in a civil or criminal case arising out of an arrest.

SUMMARY:

SUBSTITUTE BILL:  Under the Implied Consent Law, drivers are deemed to have given consent to have their urine, as well as their breath and blood, tested when they are arrested for DWI.  If a driver is arrested for DWI and the officer has probable cause to believe the driver is under the influence of drugs, the driver must submit to a blood or urine test, or he or she will lose his or her driving privilege.  Urine testing is to be done under the same conditions and by the same personnel as are authorized to perform blood testing.

SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  The original bill would also have amended the DWI law to make a specific urine alcohol level a per se violation.

Fiscal Note:      Not Requested.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Rick Jensen, WSP; Bill Fritz, Annhauser Busch; Mike Redman, WAPA, Bruce Roberts, Washington State Licensed Premises Association.

House Committee - Testified Against:      None Presented.

House Committee - Testimony For:    Many dangerously impaired drivers are not under the influence of alcohol, but rather, drugs.  This bill will allow the detection and prosecution of such drivers.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      None Presented.