Relating To The Use Of Intoxicants While Operating A Vehicle.
HB1387 lowers Hawaii’s per se blood alcohol concentration threshold for driving under the influence from 0.08 to 0.05. The bill amends the definitions of “measurable amount of alcohol” and “under the influence,” and updates the criminal DUI and habitual DUI offenses so that a driver with 0.05 or more grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or per 210 liters of breath is deemed to be operating under the influence. It also revises evidentiary presumptions in DUI prosecutions so that readings at or below 0.02 create a presumption of no alcohol impairment, while readings above 0.02 but below 0.05 may be considered with other evidence but do not create a presumption.
The bill also changes related administrative revocation provisions. If a test shows an alcohol concentration below 0.05, the driver’s license must be returned and revocation proceedings terminated. If a test shows 0.05 or more, or if drug impairment is shown, the arresting agency must forward specified reports, sworn statements, and test documentation to the director for administrative action. The measure leaves the drug-impairment provisions intact and focuses primarily on alcohol concentration thresholds and the procedures tied to DUI enforcement.
In terms of state law impact, HB1387 would amend multiple sections of Chapter 291E, Hawaii Revised Statutes, including the core DUI offense, habitual DUI offense, evidentiary rules, and administrative license revocation process. It would effectively make Hawaii’s alcohol-per-se standard stricter by lowering the legal limit, which could increase the number of drivers subject to criminal and administrative penalties. The bill also includes a savings clause preserving matured rights, penalties, and proceedings, and it specifies an effective date of July 1, 3000, while preserving certain future reenactment language for the 2028 sunset/repeal cycle referenced in existing law.
The available context shows no committee transcripts and no recorded votes, so there is no documented debate or formal legislative sentiment in the materials provided. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a public-safety approach aimed at reducing impaired driving by adopting a lower alcohol threshold. Because there is no voting history or hearing testimony here, any support or opposition can only be inferred from the policy choice itself rather than from expressed legislative positions.
The main point of contention likely concerns the policy shift from 0.08 to 0.05, which would be viewed by supporters as a stronger deterrent to impaired driving and by opponents as a stricter standard that could criminalize drivers at lower alcohol levels and affect social drinking behavior. Another practical issue is enforcement and evidentiary administration, since the bill changes presumptions and administrative revocation triggers tied to chemical test results. However, the provided record does not identify specific stakeholders or arguments on either side.
HB1387 would amend Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 291E to lower the per se blood and breath alcohol concentration threshold for DUI and habitual DUI offenses from 0.08 to 0.05, while also revising related evidentiary presumptions and administrative license revocation procedures. It would affect drivers, law enforcement, prosecutors, and the administrative revocation process by making 0.05 BAC sufficient for criminal and administrative DUI action, and by requiring license return when test results are below 0.05.
No committee transcripts or votes are provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment in the available materials. The bill’s text suggests a public-safety-oriented proposal intended to strengthen impaired-driving enforcement by lowering the legal alcohol threshold, but the record does not show formal support, opposition, or amendments debated in committee.
The central policy dispute is the reduction of the DUI per se limit from 0.08 to 0.05, which supporters would likely frame as a road-safety measure and opponents would likely view as overly punitive or burdensome for moderate drinkers. Secondary issues include the bill’s effect on evidentiary presumptions, administrative revocation triggers, and the practical consequences for enforcement and prosecution. No specific individuals, agencies, or organizations are identified in the provided context.