Bill Text: NJ S2553 | 2022-2023 | Regular Session | Introduced
Bill Title: Requires driver to submit to evaluation by drug recognition expert when involved in motor vehicle accident resulting in death.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 1-0)
Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2022-05-12 - Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Law and Public Safety Committee [S2553 Detail]
Download: New_Jersey-2022-S2553-Introduced.html
Sponsored by:
Senator KRISTIN M. CORRADO
District 40 (Bergen, Essex, Morris and Passaic)
SYNOPSIS
Requires driver to submit to evaluation by drug recognition expert when involved in motor vehicle accident resulting in death.
CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT
As introduced.
An Act concerning motor vehicle accidents resulting in death and amending P.L.1966, c.142 and P.L.1981, c.512.
Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:
1. Section 2 of P.L.1966, c.142 (C.39:4-50.2) is amended to read as follows:
2. (a) Any person who operates a motor vehicle on any public road, street or highway or quasi-public area in this State shall be deemed to have given his consent to the taking of samples of his breath for the purpose of making chemical tests to determine the content of alcohol in his blood and, if the operator of a motor vehicle has been involved in an accident resulting in death, the operator is deemed to have given consent to submitting to an evaluation by a certified drug recognition expert; provided, however, that the taking of samples is made in accordance with the provisions of this act and at the request of a police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that such person has been operating a motor vehicle in violation of the provisions of R.S.39:4-50 or section 1 of P.L.1992, c.189 (C.39:4-50.14). An operator of a motor vehicle who has been involved in an accident resulting in death shall submit to an evaluation by a certified drug recognition expert.
(b) A record of the taking of any such sample, disclosing the date and time thereof, as well as the result of any chemical test, shall be made and a copy thereof, upon his request, shall be furnished or made available to the person so tested.
(c) In addition to the samples taken and tests made at the direction of a police officer hereunder, the person tested shall be permitted to have such samples taken and chemical tests of his breath, urine or blood made by a person or physician of his own selection.
(d) The police officer shall inform the person tested of his rights under subsections (b) and (c) of this section.
(e) No chemical test, as provided in this section, or specimen necessary thereto, may be made or taken forcibly and against physical resistance thereto by the defendant. The police officer shall, however, inform the person arrested of the consequences of refusing to submit to such test in accordance with section 2 of this amendatory and supplementary act. A standard statement, prepared by the chief administrator, shall be read by the police officer to the person under arrest.
(f) As used in this
section, a certified drug recognition expert is a law enforcement officer who is
specially trained to identify
drivers who are impaired by narcotic, hallucinogenic, or habit-producing drugs other than, or in addition to, alcohol.
(cf: P.L.2007, c.267, s.1)
2. Section 2 of P.L.1981, c.512 (C.39:4-50.4a) is amended to read as follows:
2. a. The municipal court shall order any person who, after being arrested for a violation of R.S.39:4-50 or section 1 of P.L.1992, c.189 (C.39:4-50.14) or after being involved in a motor vehicle accident resulting in the death of another person, refuses to submit, upon request, to a test or evaluation provided for in section 2 of P.L.1966, c.142 (C.39:4-50.2):
(1) if the refusal was in connection with a first offense under this section, to forfeit the right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State until the person installs an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the person, whichever the person most often operates, for the purpose of complying with the provisions of P.L.1999, c.417 (C.39:4-50.16 et al.);
(2) if the refusal was in connection with a second offense under this section, to forfeit the right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period of not less than one year or more than two years following the installation of an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the person, whichever the person most often operates, for the purpose of complying with the provisions of P.L.1999, c.417 (C.39:4-50.16 et al.);
(3) if the refusal was in connection with a third or subsequent offense under this section, to forfeit the right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period of eight years following the installation of an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the person, whichever the person most often operates, for the purpose of complying with the provisions of P.L.1999, c.417 (C.39:4-50.16 et al.). A conviction or administrative determination of a violation of a law of a substantially similar nature in another jurisdiction, regardless of whether that jurisdiction is a signatory to the Interstate Driver License Compact pursuant to P.L.1966, c.73 (C.39:5D-1 et seq.), shall constitute a prior conviction under this section.
The municipal court shall determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether the arresting officer had probable cause to believe that the person had been driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle on the public highways or quasi-public areas of this State while the person was under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a narcotic, hallucinogenic, or habit-producing drug, or marijuana or cannabis item as defined in section 3 of P.L.2021, c.16 (C.24:6I-33) or when an accident resulting in death occurred; whether the person was placed under arrest, if appropriate, and whether he refused to submit to the test or evaluation upon request of the officer; and if these elements of the violation are not established, no conviction shall issue. In addition to any other requirements provided by law, a person whose operator's license is revoked for refusing to submit to a test or evaluation shall be referred to an Intoxicated Driver Resource Center established by subsection (f) of R.S.39:4-50 and shall satisfy the same requirements of the center for refusal to submit to a test as provided for in section 2 of P.L.1966, c.142 (C.39:4-50.2) in connection with a first, second, third or subsequent offense under this section that must be satisfied by a person convicted of a commensurate violation of this section, or be subject to the same penalties as such a person for failure to do so. For a first offense, the revocation may be concurrent with or consecutive to any revocation imposed for a conviction under the provisions of R.S.39:4-50 arising out of the same incident. For a second or subsequent offense, the revocation shall be consecutive to any revocation imposed for a conviction under the provisions of R.S.39:4-50. In addition to issuing a revocation, the municipal court shall fine a person convicted under this section, a fine of not less than $300 or more than $500 for a first offense; a fine of not less than $500 or more than $1,000 for a second offense; and a fine of $1,000 for a third or subsequent offense.
b. (Deleted by amendment, P.L.2019, c.248)
(cf: P.L.2021, c.16, s.82)
3. This act shall take effect on the first day of the fourth month following enactment.
STATEMENT
This bill expands the implied consent law to include evaluations by a drug recognition expert when the operator of a motor vehicle is involved in an accident resulting in death and requires that an operator of a motor vehicle who has been involved in an accident resulting in death submit to an evaluation by a certified drug recognition expert.
Under current law, any person who operates a motor vehicle on a public road in this State is deemed to have given consent to a breath test for the purpose of determining the person's blood alcohol content. The provisions of this bill extend this implied consent law to include an evaluation by a certified drug recognition expert when the operator of a motor vehicle is involved in an accident resulting in death. The bill requires that a person submit to an evaluation by a certified drug recognition expert when the person is involved in a motor vehicle accident resulting in death in order to determine if the person was driving under the influence of drugs.
The bill defines a certified drug recognition expert as a law enforcement officer who is specially trained to identify drivers who are impaired by narcotic, hallucinogenic, or habit-producing drugs other than, or in addition to, alcohol.
Finally, a person who refuses to consent to the evaluation would be subject to the same penalties as a person who is convicted of refusing a breath test in relation to a drunk driving charge under R.S.39:4-50.
