Motor Vehicles - Accidents - Required Testing for Impaired Driving (Mateo's Law)
HB 114, titled “Mateo’s Law,” would expand Maryland’s impaired-driving testing requirements after serious motor vehicle accidents. Under current law, testing is tied to a police officer having reasonable grounds to believe the person was driving under the influence or otherwise impaired. This bill removes that prerequisite in cases where a person is involved in a motor vehicle accident that causes the death of, or a life-threatening injury to, another person, and requires the person to submit to breath testing and blood testing as directed by police.
The bill also clarifies that if an officer directs testing, the procedures in § 10-304 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article apply, and it preserves civil immunity for medical personnel who perform the required tests unless their conduct amounts to gross negligence. The act would take effect October 1, 2026, and would amend Transportation Article § 16-205.1(c).
HB 114 would change Maryland’s implied-consent and post-accident testing framework by making breath and blood testing mandatory in fatal or life-threatening crash cases, regardless of whether police first establish reasonable grounds to suspect impairment. This would broaden law enforcement authority, increase the number of cases in which chemical testing may be compelled, and potentially strengthen evidence collection in serious crash investigations. It would affect drivers involved in qualifying accidents, police officers directing testing, and medical personnel who draw blood or otherwise perform the tests.
The available context suggests the bill is framed as a public-safety and accountability measure, with the title “Mateo’s Law” indicating a victim-centered motivation. No committee testimony, amendments, or recorded votes are provided, so there is no direct evidence of organized support or opposition in the materials supplied. Based on the text alone, the bill appears designed to facilitate impaired-driving enforcement after severe crashes, which typically draws support from traffic safety advocates and prosecutors.
The main point of contention is likely the removal of the existing threshold requiring police to have reasonable grounds to believe the driver was impaired before ordering testing. Critics could view this as an expansion of compelled testing and a potential privacy or bodily-integrity concern, especially because it applies automatically after a death or life-threatening injury. Supporters are likely to emphasize the need for prompt evidence preservation in serious crashes and the public-safety benefits of identifying impaired drivers. Another possible issue is the practical burden on medical personnel and law enforcement, though the bill includes liability protection for medical staff absent gross negligence.