A bill for an act requiring employees of the department of transportation to provide a specimen for alcohol and drug analysis following a motor vehicle accident or collision resulting in injury or death, and making penalties applicable.(See HF 788.)
Summary
House File 162 would create a new requirement for employees of the Iowa Department of Transportation, and employees operating motor vehicles owned by another state entity, to provide a urine specimen for alcohol and drug testing if they are involved in a motor vehicle accident or collision that results in injury or death. The specimen must be given to a peace officer as soon as practicable, and within two hours after the incident, unless testing is already being conducted under Iowa’s operating-while-intoxicated laws in chapter 321J.
The bill directs that the specimen be analyzed under procedures consistent with chapter 321J to determine alcohol concentration or the presence of controlled substances or other drugs. It also allows the employee to obtain an independent analysis at their own expense and requires that the test results be made available to the employee upon request. A violation of the new requirement would be treated as a simple misdemeanor, carrying the standard misdemeanor penalties under Iowa law.
Impact
The bill would add a new section to Iowa Code chapter 321, expanding post-accident testing obligations for certain state employees beyond the general implied-consent framework in chapter 321J. It would specifically affect DOT employees and, by reference, employees operating vehicles owned by other state entities when an injury- or death-related crash occurs. The measure would also create a criminal penalty for noncompliance and incorporate chapter 321J testing standards for analysis and evidentiary treatment.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received generally favorable committee support, as reflected by the House Transportation Committee report passing 19-1. No committee transcript is available here, but the vote suggests broad agreement with the bill’s public-safety purpose and its focus on state vehicle operators involved in serious crashes. The bill was later withdrawn, indicating that despite initial support, it did not advance to enactment in its introduced form.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the mandatory nature of the testing requirement, especially because it applies to state employees after serious accidents regardless of whether there is an independent OWI investigation already underway. Potential concerns include privacy, due process, and whether the requirement is duplicative of existing implied-consent and OWI testing laws. The availability of an independent test at the employee’s expense may have been intended to address fairness concerns, but the bill still places the burden of compliance on the employee and makes refusal or failure to comply a criminal offense.
Similar To
A bill for an act requiring state employees to provide a specimen for alcohol and drug analysis following certain motor vehicle accidents or collisions resulting in serious injury or death under certain circumstances, and making penalties applicable. (Formerly HF 162.)