HB3766 is a comprehensive update to Oklahoma’s driving-under-the-influence laws and related criminal classification statutes. The bill makes a series of technical reference updates to the state’s Class B3, Class B4, and Class C2 offense lists, but its main policy change is a rewrite of the DUI provisions in Title 47. It creates a specific framework for driving under the influence of a controlled substance, including a two-tier system based on active psychoactive substance levels and additional evidence of impairment, while making clear that inactive metabolites alone do not create a per se violation. The bill also defines key terms, authorizes the Oklahoma Board of Tests for Alcohol and Drug Influence to set rules for testing thresholds, and requires chemical test results to identify active THC, inactive metabolites, and sample timing. It preserves the right to independent testing and allows medical marijuana patients to present evidence of lawful therapeutic use to rebut impairment presumptions.
The bill also revises penalties and related consequences for DUI and DUI-related offenses. It keeps and updates the existing misdemeanor and felony penalty structure for repeat DUI offenses, aggravated DUI, DUI causing injury, and underage DUI, while tying some repeat offenses to the newly updated Class B3, B4, and C2 classifications. It continues mandatory assessment, treatment, ignition interlock, community service, victim impact panel, electronic monitoring, and driver-license revocation requirements, and it updates the statutes governing revocation by Service Oklahoma. In addition, it clarifies that certain DUI convictions and related conduct can trigger enhanced punishment and license consequences, including for injury accidents and underage drivers.
In terms of state law impact, the bill would amend multiple sections of Oklahoma statutes across Titles 21, 47, 57, 63, 68, 71, and others by updating cross-references and aligning DUI-related offenses with the state’s newer criminal classification system. The most significant substantive change is in Section 11-902, where the bill establishes controlled-substance DUI standards, evidentiary rules, and testing requirements. It also amends Section 11-904 and Section 11-906.4 to conform injury-accident DUI and underage DUI provisions to the revised framework. The bill would take effect November 1, 2026.
Overall, the bill appears to be framed as a public-safety and enforcement measure, with a strong focus on clarifying DUI law for drugs and marijuana while preserving treatment and assessment components. Because no committee transcript or vote history is available, there is no recorded floor or committee sentiment in the provided materials. Based on the text alone, the bill’s structure suggests an intent to strengthen prosecutorial clarity and sentencing consistency rather than to relax DUI enforcement.
The main points of contention likely center on the controlled-substance DUI standards, especially the use of active THC thresholds, the rebuttable presumption for medical marijuana patients, and the exclusion of inactive metabolites as a standalone basis for conviction. Other likely areas of debate include the balance between public safety and due process, the role of scientific testing thresholds, and the extent of mandatory penalties such as ignition interlock, treatment, and license revocation. The bill also touches on broader criminal-law and drug-policy issues by linking DUI provisions to controlled-substance offenses and repeat-offender enhancements.
HB3766 would amend Oklahoma’s DUI and driver-license revocation statutes, primarily in Title 47, while also updating related criminal classification provisions in Title 21 and cross-references in other titles. It would create a specific controlled-substance DUI offense framework, establish evidentiary and testing rules for THC and other psychoactive substances, preserve independent testing rights, and modify how repeat DUI, injury-related DUI, and underage DUI offenses are punished and administratively sanctioned. The bill would also affect Service Oklahoma’s revocation authority, court-ordered assessments and treatment, ignition interlock requirements, and the classification of certain DUI offenses as Class B3, B4, or C2 crimes.
No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no direct legislative sentiment to report from hearings or roll calls. From the bill text, the measure appears generally pro-enforcement and public-safety oriented, with detailed penalties and administrative consequences, but it also includes accommodations for medical marijuana patients, independent testing, and scientific threshold-setting. That suggests a mixed but structured approach: stronger DUI enforcement paired with some procedural and evidentiary safeguards.
The most likely points of contention are the new controlled-substance DUI standards, especially the active THC threshold, the rebuttable presumption of impairment, and the treatment of medical marijuana use. Stakeholders concerned about criminal justice and civil liberties may focus on whether the bill gives prosecutors too much discretion or whether the scientific thresholds are reliable and fair. Law enforcement and public-safety advocates are likely to support the clearer impairment rules and enhanced penalties, while defense attorneys, medical marijuana advocates, and some patient groups may object to the risk of overbroad enforcement or uncertainty in testing and impairment determinations.