relative to refusal of consent to testing to determine alcohol concentration and penalties for aggravated driving while intoxicated.
SB 620 revises New Hampshire’s implied-consent and aggravated DWI penalties. For a first refusal to submit to alcohol/drug testing, the bill increases the driver’s license suspension or nonresident driving privilege denial from 180 days to 12 months. For a person with prior qualifying DWI-related convictions or prior refusals, it increases the suspension or denial period from 2 years to 3 years. The bill also clarifies that these refusal penalties run separately from other penalties under the motor vehicle laws.
The bill further changes sentencing for aggravated DWI, including creating a new aggravated DWI category under RSA 265-A:3, III with a class A misdemeanor penalty, a minimum fine, a mandatory county jail sentence that may be suspended, required substance use disorder evaluation and treatment compliance, ignition interlock requirements, and possible random testing. It also authorizes the court, in certain plea cases, to suspend up to 180 days of the refusal-related license suspension, and requires any court-ordered revocation to run consecutively to any administrative suspension or revocation imposed by the Department of Safety. The act would take effect January 1, 2027.
SB 620 would amend RSA 265-A:14 and RSA 265-A:18, increasing administrative license consequences for refusing chemical testing and tightening criminal penalties and post-conviction supervision for aggravated DWI. It would affect drivers arrested for alcohol- or drug-related offenses, repeat offenders, courts, the Department of Safety, county correctional facilities, and the impaired-driving intervention and monitoring system. The fiscal note indicates no direct revenue impact but indeterminable expenditures due to potential effects on prosecution, incarceration, probation, parole, and related judicial and correctional costs.
The available vote history suggests the bill advanced with substantial support, as reflected by the 259-93 OTPA vote. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate detailed arguments for or against the measure. Overall, the bill appears to have been treated as a public-safety and impaired-driving enforcement measure rather than a controversial policy overhaul.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s tougher sanctions for refusal to test and aggravated DWI, especially the longer license suspensions, mandatory jail exposure, and extended revocation periods. Supporters would view the bill as strengthening deterrence and accountability for impaired driving, while opponents may object to the increased penalties, the added burden on courts and correctional systems, and the possibility of harsher consequences for refusal cases that may already carry significant administrative penalties. The provision allowing courts to suspend part of the refusal suspension in plea cases may also reflect an attempt to balance punishment with judicial discretion.