DUI test refusal penalties proposed

Summary#

Wyoming HB 192, “DUI penalties-refusal of a chemical test,” would amend three state motor-vehicle statutes. It would make refusing a chemical test after a search warrant is issued a misdemeanor in specified cases, and its stated goal is to set penalties for that refusal. The bill failed, so it did not change the law.

  • For people arrested on suspicion of DUI, refusing the test after a warrant is issued would carry up to six months in jail, a fine of up to $750, or both.
  • The same penalties would apply to people under 21 arrested for an offense defined in the youthful-driver statute, and to people driving or in actual physical control of a commercial vehicle who are arrested on suspicion of DUI.
  • A conviction for refusal would require a driver’s license suspension of 30 days to one year; for the commercial-vehicle category, it would require suspension of the commercial driver’s license for that period.
  • Refusal could be used as evidence in a DUI case.
  • A person charged with refusal would have to get a substance use disorder assessment by sentencing and complete any treatment it recommends. The offender would pay for the assessment.
  • The Department of Transportation would have to make rules needed to implement the bill.

What it means for you#

  • Drivers arrested on suspicion of DUI: If the bill had become law, refusing a test requested after a search warrant was issued could have led to a separate misdemeanor charge and the listed penalties.
  • Drivers under 21: The refusal penalty would apply to someone arrested for an offense defined in the youthful-driver statute. The bill also says refusal could be evidence in a DUI case.
  • Commercial drivers: The refusal penalty would apply to someone driving or in actual physical control of a commercial vehicle who was arrested on suspicion of DUI. The required suspension would be of the commercial driver’s license.
  • People charged with refusal: They would have to undergo an assessment by sentencing and complete any treatment recommended. The bill does not say who would pay for treatment.
  • Wyoming Department of Transportation: It would have to make rules needed to implement the changes.
  • The supplied material does not include the current versions of the statutes being amended, so the current penalties and procedures cannot be verified here.

Money#

No public cost estimate is included in the supplied material.

  • The person charged would have to pay for the assessment; the bill gives no amount.
  • The bill requires the Department of Transportation to make rules, but gives no estimate for staff time or other costs.
  • It allows fines of up to $750, but the material does not estimate how many fines might be imposed or the revenue they might bring.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not explain how the length of a required license suspension would be set within the 30-day-to-one-year range.
  • It does not set a deadline for completing recommended treatment or say who pays for it.
  • It does not describe procedures for the new refusal charge, such as hearings or appeals.
  • The current statutes are not supplied, so how these penalties would interact with existing refusal penalties or suspension rules cannot be confirmed. No publicly available information in the supplied materials resolves that.
  • The bill does not include an estimate of costs, staffing needs, or the number of cases it might affect.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to attach clear criminal and license penalties to refusing a test after a search warrant has been issued.
  • Allowing refusal to be used as evidence could give a court information relevant to a DUI charge.
  • Requiring an assessment and any recommended treatment could connect people charged with refusal to substance use disorder services.

Case against#

  • A person charged with refusal would have to get an assessment and complete recommended treatment, even though the bill does not say this requirement depends on a conviction.
  • The bill sets a wide range for the mandatory suspension but does not explain how decision-makers would choose its length.
  • The offender must pay for the assessment, but the bill does not state its cost or how treatment would be paid for.
  • The bill adds penalties without the supplied materials showing how they compare with current law or how they would work alongside existing rules.