NJ Bill A2902: Expands DUI Laws to Blood Tests, Marijuana

New Jersey Bill A2902: A Deep Dive into Proposed DUI Law Changes

New Jersey Assembly Bill A2902, sponsored by Assemblyman Alex Sauickie, aims to significantly overhaul the state's Driving Under the Influence (DUI) laws.

This pending legislation, currently under review by the Assembly Public Safety and Preparedness Committee, proposes two major changes: expanding the implied consent law to include blood testing and establishing a 'per se' standard for driving under the influence of marijuana and certain controlled dangerous substances.

Let's break down what this means for New Jersey drivers.

What Does A2902 Propose?

At its core, A2902 seeks to update New Jersey's DUI laws to reflect current realities and perceived challenges in enforcing drug-impaired driving. The bill tackles two key areas:

1. Expansion of Implied Consent:

Currently, New Jersey's implied consent law primarily focuses on breathalyzer tests to determine blood alcohol content (BAC).

This law states that by operating a motor vehicle on New Jersey roads, a driver implicitly consents to submit to a breathalyzer test if lawfully arrested for DUI.

Refusal to take a breathalyzer results in significant penalties, separate from any DUI charge.

A2902 proposes to extend this implied consent to include blood tests.

This means if a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe a driver is under the influence of drugs, they can request a blood sample for testing.

Similar to the breathalyzer law, refusing a blood test would carry separate penalties, potentially including license suspension and fines.

**2.

Establishment of a 'Per Se' Standard for Marijuana and Controlled Dangerous Substances:**

Currently, proving drug-impaired driving in New Jersey requires demonstrating that the driver's ability to operate a vehicle was actually impaired.

This often relies on field sobriety tests, observations of erratic driving behavior, and the testimony of law enforcement officers.

While drug tests (urine or blood) can be used as evidence, they are often used to corroborate other evidence of impairment.

A2902 proposes a 'per se' standard, which means that if a driver's blood test reveals the presence of certain levels of marijuana or other specified controlled dangerous substances, they are automatically considered to be driving under the influence, regardless of whether their driving ability was demonstrably impaired. The bill will likely stipulate specific nanogram levels for each substance that would trigger the 'per se' violation.

Potential Impact on Drivers

The implications of A2902 for New Jersey drivers are substantial:

• Increased Scrutiny and Testing: The expanded implied consent law could lead to more drivers being subjected to blood tests, particularly in situations where alcohol is not suspected as the primary cause of impairment.

This could disproportionately affect individuals who use legally prescribed medications or who have recently consumed cannabis, even if they are not actively impaired.

• 'Per Se' Standard Concerns: The 'per se' standard raises concerns about fairness and accuracy. Unlike alcohol, where BAC directly correlates with impairment, the presence of THC (the psychoactive compound in marijuana) in the blood does not always indicate current impairment. THC can remain in the system for days or even weeks after use, depending on frequency of use and individual metabolism. A driver could test positive for THC long after its effects have worn off and still face DUI charges under the 'per se' standard.
• Legal Challenges: The 'per se' standard is likely to face legal challenges based on arguments that it violates due process rights and presumes guilt based solely on the presence of a substance, without requiring proof of actual impairment. The accuracy and reliability of drug testing methodologies will also be scrutinized.
• Increased DUI Arrests: The combination of expanded testing and a 'per se' standard could lead to a significant increase in DUI arrests, potentially straining the court system and increasing the burden on law enforcement.
• Difficulty Proving Innocence: Under the 'per se' standard, it may be difficult for drivers to prove they were not impaired, even if they present evidence demonstrating their normal driving behavior and lack of any noticeable impairment.

This shifts the burden of proof, requiring defendants to prove their innocence rather than the prosecution proving their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Comparison to Current New Jersey DUI Laws

To understand the magnitude of the proposed changes, let's compare A2902 to the current New Jersey DUI laws:

• Implied Consent: Primarily applies to breathalyzer tests for alcohol. Refusal carries penalties. - Expands to include blood tests for drugs. Refusal to submit to blood test would carry similar penalties as refusing a breathalyzer.

• Drug-Impaired Driving: Requires proof of actual impairment.

Evidence includes field sobriety tests, observations, and drug test results.

Drug test results are usually used to corroborate other evidence of impairment. Establishes 'per se' standard for marijuana and certain controlled dangerous substances.

Specific nanogram levels in the blood would automatically constitute a DUI, regardless of demonstrable impairment.

• Admissibility of Evidence: Drug test results are admissible as evidence of impairment but are not conclusive on their own. - Drug test results showing levels above the 'per se' threshold would be considered conclusive evidence of DUI, potentially limiting the defendant's ability to challenge the evidence based on lack of actual impairment.

Context and Rationale Behind the Legislation

The introduction of A2902 is likely driven by several factors:

• Increasing Marijuana Use: With the growing acceptance and legalization of marijuana in various states, including neighboring states, there is a concern about an increase in marijuana-impaired driving.

Lawmakers may believe that current laws are inadequate to address this issue effectively.

• Challenges in Proving Drug Impairment: Proving drug impairment can be more complex than proving alcohol impairment.

Field sobriety tests are often less reliable for detecting drug impairment, and there is no universally accepted standard for determining what level of a drug constitutes impairment. A 'per se' standard is seen by some as a way to simplify and streamline DUI prosecutions.

• Law Enforcement Concerns: Law enforcement agencies may be advocating for stricter laws to give them more tools to combat drug-impaired driving. The expanded implied consent law and 'per se' standard would provide officers with greater authority to conduct drug tests and prosecute offenders.
• Public Safety Concerns: Proponents of A2902 argue that it is necessary to protect public safety by deterring drug-impaired driving and holding offenders accountable.

They point to studies showing that drug-impaired drivers are more likely to be involved in accidents.

Practical Information for Affected Drivers

If A2902 becomes law, New Jersey drivers need to be aware of the following:

• Understand the Law: Familiarize yourself with the specific provisions of the law, including the 'per se' limits for different substances and the penalties for refusing a blood test.
• Be Aware of Potential Risks: If you use marijuana or other controlled substances, be mindful of the potential risks of driving, even if you do not feel impaired. Remember that THC can remain in your system for extended periods.
• Consult with an Attorney: If you are arrested for DUI, especially if it involves drugs, consult with an experienced New Jersey DUI attorney. An attorney can advise you on your rights, help you understand the charges against you, and represent you in court.
• Challenge the Evidence: If you are facing DUI charges based on a 'per se' violation, your attorney may be able to challenge the accuracy of the drug test, the validity of the 'per se' standard, or the legality of the traffic stop.
• Stay Informed: Keep up-to-date on any changes to New Jersey's DUI laws and regulations.

In Conclusion:

New Jersey Bill A2902 represents a significant shift in the state's approach to DUI enforcement, particularly concerning drug-impaired driving.

While proponents argue it will enhance public safety, critics raise concerns about fairness, accuracy, and potential violations of due process. As the bill progresses through the legislative process, it is crucial for New Jersey drivers to stay informed and understand the potential implications of these proposed changes. It is also likely to spark substantial debate about the role of 'per se' laws in drug-impaired driving cases and the complexities of accurately measuring impairment based on blood test results.