Concerning a requirement that a law enforcement officer offer a voluntary preliminary screening test for alcohol to a driver, and, in connection therewith, making an appropriation.
Summary
SB 26-132, titled “Magnus’ Law,” requires a law enforcement officer to offer a voluntary preliminary breath screening test for alcohol to a driver involved in a collision resulting in death or suspected serious bodily injury, so long as the officer has reasonable suspicion the person was the driver at fault, the person is not significantly injured or in need of immediate medical attention, and the officer does not already have probable cause to proceed under Colorado’s express consent law. The bill also requires the officer to advise the driver in plain language that the test is voluntary, that the driver may refuse or agree, that the results or refusal are not admissible in court, that a positive result may support further testing or arrest, and that refusal does not affect driver’s license status.
The bill further limits when the offer is required: it is not required if the officer’s initial contact occurs more than two hours after the collision or if the driver has left the scene before the officer learns the crash involved death or serious bodily injury. If the test cannot be administered because the device malfunctions or is unavailable due to extenuating circumstances, the officer must document that fact on body-worn camera and in the incident report. The act applies only to incidents occurring on or after its effective date and is named in memory of Magnus White, whose death is cited in the legislative declaration as a motivating example of why a clear, mandatory protocol is needed.
Impact
The bill amends Colorado Revised Statutes section 42-4-1301, which governs DUI, DWAI, and related alcohol-testing procedures, by adding a new mandatory duty for officers in serious or fatal collision investigations to offer a voluntary preliminary alcohol screening test under specified conditions. It also adds new advisement language and documentation requirements, while preserving the voluntary nature of the test and leaving existing evidentiary and express-consent rules intact. The practical effect is to standardize roadside investigative practice in serious crashes and create a record when testing cannot be performed.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been viewed positively and as a public-safety and victim-centered measure, with the legislative declaration emphasizing consistency, preservation of evidence, and accountability in serious crash investigations. The absence of recorded committee testimony or vote details in the provided materials limits a fuller read on debate, but the bill’s passage and gubernatorial signature suggest broad support. The framing around Magnus White’s death likely contributed to a strong emotional and policy rationale in favor of the measure.
Contention
The main policy tension in the bill is between mandatory officer procedure and preserving driver choice. Supporters argue that requiring officers to offer the test prevents inconsistent practices and loss of evidence, while the bill’s safeguards stress that the test remains voluntary, refusal carries no penalty, and results are not admissible in court. Another possible point of contention is the scope and timing of the duty—particularly the two-hour limit, the exception when the driver is no longer present, and the carveout when probable cause already exists under express consent law—which reflect an effort to balance investigatory needs with practical and constitutional concerns.