AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39 and Title 55, relative to driving under the influence of an intoxicant.
Summary
SB1400 revises Tennessee’s DUI and implied-consent laws in several ways. It expands the circumstances under which a driver’s refusal to submit to chemical testing can be charged as a violation, clarifying that refusal remains a violation even if law enforcement later obtains the person’s blood sample by search warrant, court order, exigent circumstances, or other lawful means. The bill also adds oral fluid testing as an authorized testing method in DUI investigations, allowing such tests with consent, under a search warrant, incident to a lawful arrest for specified offenses, or without consent when exigent circumstances exist.
The bill further makes the results of a properly conducted oral fluid test admissible at trial for offenses covered by the DUI testing statute. In addition, it increases the criminal penalties in Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-13-106(c), by changing one sentencing range from three years to six years and another from five years to eight years, effective January 1, 2026. Other provisions related to testing and refusal take effect immediately upon becoming law.
Impact
SB1400 amends Title 55 and Title 39 of the Tennessee Code, primarily affecting DUI enforcement, implied-consent procedures, and evidentiary rules in criminal prosecutions. It gives law enforcement an additional testing tool through oral fluid tests, clarifies refusal-liability rules, and strengthens the admissibility of test results in court. It also increases certain penalties under Section 39-13-106(c), which will affect sentencing exposure for covered offenses beginning January 1, 2026.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received generally favorable support, passing the Senate Judiciary Committee 7-2 and later clearing the Senate floor by a wide margin. The final floor votes indicate substantial bipartisan support, though not unanimity, suggesting broad agreement with the bill’s DUI enforcement goals alongside some reservations.
Contention
The main points of contention likely centered on the expansion of police testing authority and the treatment of refusal when a blood sample is later obtained by warrant or other lawful means. The addition of oral fluid testing and its admissibility at trial may also have raised privacy, reliability, and due-process concerns for some members, which is consistent with the small number of dissenting votes in committee and on the floor. The penalty increases effective in 2026 may have been another area of concern for lawmakers wary of harsher criminal sanctions.