Sobriety tests after serious crashes

Summary#

A-5684, designated “Michael ‘Mikey’ Gioia’s Law,” would amend New Jersey’s chemical-testing and test-refusal laws; it would not create a separate agency or program. Its stated goal is to require sobriety and chemical tests after certain serious crashes. The bill is introduced and is not law.

  • For a driver involved in a crash on a public road or quasi-public area that causes someone’s death or “serious bodily injury,” it would require a standardized field sobriety test and a chemical test.
  • The chemical test would use a sample of breath, blood, urine, or saliva to test for alcohol, narcotic, hallucinogenic, or habit-producing drugs.
  • It would treat drivers in those crashes as having consented to the chemical sample. The bill retains the existing rule that a chemical test or sample cannot be taken forcibly against physical resistance.
  • It would create a rebuttable presumption (a conclusion that can be challenged) that the driver was under the influence if the driver refuses a field sobriety or chemical test in those circumstances.

What it means for you#

  • Drivers involved in qualifying crashes: The bill would require the tests regardless of whether the text says an officer must first have reasonable grounds to suspect impairment. It does not directly change the general rules for crashes that do not involve death or serious bodily injury.
  • Police: They would have to conduct a standardized field sobriety test and obtain a chemical sample in a qualifying crash. The bill does not set out a detailed procedure for doing this.
  • Drivers who refuse: Refusal could support a rebuttable presumption of impairment. The bill does not state a separate penalty for refusing these tests in a qualifying crash. It also preserves the existing bar on forcibly taking a chemical sample against physical resistance.
  • Courts: The presumption could be considered in a case, but it would not by itself make impairment an unchallengeable finding.
  • Current law: The bill’s statement says current law provides for breath testing when an officer has reasonable grounds to suspect impaired driving. The existing laws being amended were not supplied, so that description and the bill’s full effect against current law could not be independently verified.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

  • The bill would require testing in qualifying crashes, but it gives no estimate for testing, police time, training, or other costs.
  • It does not set a fee, fine, or appropriation.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not explain how officers should handle cases where a driver cannot complete a field sobriety test or provide a sample.
  • It does not specify how a sample type would be selected, or set procedures, timelines, or review steps for the tests.
  • The definition of “serious bodily injury” is incorporated from another statute, whose text was not supplied.
  • The refusal provision refers to a DUI violation under “R.S.30:4-50,” while the bill elsewhere refers to “R.S.39:4-50.” The materials do not explain this difference or its effect.
  • The bill would take effect immediately if enacted, but whether it will pass is uncertain.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to secure evidence about possible impairment after crashes involving death or serious bodily injury.
  • Requiring both a field sobriety test and a chemical test could provide more than one way to assess possible impairment.
  • A rebuttable presumption for refusal could address situations where a driver declines tests after such a crash, while still allowing the driver to challenge the conclusion.

Case against#

  • The bill requires testing based on the crash outcome, without stating that an officer must first have reasonable grounds to suspect impairment.
  • The bill gives few details about test procedures, exceptions, or how a driver can challenge the testing process.
  • A refusal-based presumption could affect a driver’s case even though the bill does not make refusal proof of impairment.
  • The inconsistent statute reference in the presumption provision could create uncertainty about how it applies.