Crimes: intoxication or impairment; methods of testing intoxication or impairment in the Michigan vehicle code; expand to include other bodily fluid. Amends secs. 625a, 625c & 625g of 1949 PA 300 (MCL 257.625a et seq.). TIE BAR WITH: HB 4390'25
HB 4391 amends the Michigan Vehicle Code’s drunk- and drugged-driving testing provisions to expressly add “other bodily fluid” alongside blood, breath, and urine in several places. The bill updates the implied-consent, preliminary testing, evidentiary, and license-administration sections so that chemical testing may be performed on other bodily fluids to determine alcohol, controlled substance, or other intoxicating substance presence, and so that those results can be used in criminal and civil proceedings under the same general framework already used for blood, breath, and urine tests.
The bill also makes conforming changes to arrest authority, advisements to arrested drivers, refusal consequences, and procedures for handling test results after crashes, including when a driver is transported to a medical facility or is deceased. It preserves existing rules for commercial motor vehicle drivers, under-21 drivers, and refusal-based penalties, while adding privacy protections for oral-fluid testing by private entities, such as destruction of samples, limits on DNA database entry, and restrictions on storing test results in databases except as needed for licensure and internal storage.
HB 4391 would amend sections 625a, 625c, and 625g of the Michigan Vehicle Code, broadening the statutory testing language to include other bodily fluids in addition to blood, breath, and urine. This affects implied consent, preliminary chemical breath/oral-fluid testing, admissibility of test results, refusal penalties, license confiscation and temporary licensing procedures, and post-accident testing rules. It also directs the Department of State Police to continue promulgating uniform rules for chemical testing and adds specific privacy safeguards for oral-fluid testing by private entities.
The bill appears to have generally favorable support in the House committee process and on the floor, though not unanimous. It was reported from committee twice with 5-0 votes, indicating no recorded committee opposition, but the House third reading vote was 61-44, showing a meaningful minority of members opposed the measure. The bill also received immediate effect, suggesting supporters viewed it as sufficiently important or time-sensitive to accelerate implementation.
The main points of contention likely center on expanding police testing authority and the evidentiary use of nontraditional bodily-fluid tests, especially oral-fluid testing, in impaired-driving cases. Opponents may be concerned about privacy, reliability, and the breadth of law-enforcement discretion, while supporters likely view the bill as a modernization measure that improves detection of alcohol and drug impairment. The added oral-fluid privacy language suggests lawmakers were attentive to concerns about DNA collection, data retention, and misuse of test information.