S.B. 226 Fatal Motor Vehicle Accident Amendments: transcript

Thank you. Um, I don't think I normally run law enforcement bills, um, but, um, SB 2 26 is because I have a constituent who came to me lives in Mountain Green. Um, she, um, her husband was coming home from church on a Sunday, a motor, uh, uh, a truck crossed over into his lane of traffic, hit him head on and killed him. And there was no, um, the, the officer just said at the scene, I don't see any signs of impairment, and there was no further action taken. And she's pretty distraught about that and not having any idea if there was something more than just, um, behind this. She couldn't be here today. But we have onlined somebody who's a victim advocate. Uh, I think her na Ms. Dana Zens, um, and I'm gonna let her speak for just a few minutes 'cause she has, uh, the testimony of, um, my constituent who is traveling out and is out of town. But what this does, um, after having talked to the ags office, DPS, county attorneys, prosecutors, um, everybody in, uh, who sees these issues from a different, uh, standpoint, after talking to all of them, and there is now another substitute to this bill that I would like, uh, that would be run. So it's the second sub of Senate Bill 2 26. Um, we've been through various versions and various amendments trying to get this right. Um, but let me tell you what the bill does. Um, the bill says that if you've got, um, an officer at the scene and the officer doesn't, um, feel like that additional testing, um, is reasonable, that at least they will consult with a senior police officer before they make that final decision. So it's just not one viewpoint, it's two. Um, based on the circumstances, what my constituent wanted is there to be automatic requirement that we do that. But, um, they would have to be in a warrant. And in order to get a warrant, there has to be probable cause. And so what this does is say, let's at least get a second opinion about whether there's probable cause, uh, of, for a warrant, um, based on some impairment and with a more senior officer. I think everyone's fine with this bill now that we got it to that point. Um, and so I'll be available for questions, but I I do want you to hear from Dana's ends Before questions before questions.

All right. I will be reading this statement from my friend Donika, if she feels she's too emotional to do it. Thank you for your opportunity to advocate for SB 2 26 fatal motor Vehicle accident amendments. This past year. Mother's Day was on May 11th. Lynn Bigelow, who is my husband of 30 years attended church with me prior to our four adult children. Joining us later that afternoon for a Mother's Day luncheon. The church building is approximately a mile from our home in Mountain Green. After this service was over, Lynn was traveling home and was struck head on by a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction. The vehicle did not merely drift into the opposite lane of traffic, marked by a double line, it completely entered my husband's lane. The moment of impact struck the passenger side front bumper at, of the at-fault driver's truck with the center of my husband's car, Lynn was killed. This sequence of events raised painful questions for me related to the crash, including if substance use was a factor. I'm not alleging that it was, however, I was alarmed when I learned that toxicology testing was not conducted in this case. The absence of that information was the difference between a class C misdemeanor charge and a felony manslaughter charge. The lack of toxicology screening will forever deprive me of a piece of knowing that every possible factor was examined and considered. I'm grateful to Senator Millner, her staff, and others that have worked to bring awareness to this important piece of legislation. I'm hopeful that toxicology screening will become a law and standard in Utah when vehicular fatalities, fatalities happen by voting Yes. To move SB 2 26 legislation forward, you'll be supporting justice by holding impaired offenders accountable, by helping exonerate those who do not drive under the influence, by providing a small lever level of comfort for those who are grieving, knowing that justice prevailed and you will be making Utah Roads a safer place for everyone. Thank you.

Um, yeah, it's, that question has come out before it, it's hard, um, because they're, uh, I think the still the same judgment, uh, of the police officer at the scene. And based on the criticality of the accident, uh, could consult a senior, a more senior police officer. Um, but, you know, sometimes they die. Someone will die at the scene, but sometimes it's later, and whether it's a day later or a week later, it's hard. So this is just trying to address something where we have more certainty.

Mr. Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Carl Holland. I am the Executive Director for the Statewide Association of Prosecutors. We wanna thank the sponsor for bringing this really important bill, um, and for working together with all stakeholders to get this into a great spot. Uh, we wholeheartedly support it. I think that it's important to recognize that what happened in this case that brought this forward is incredibly tragic. Um, and the difficult balance that law enforcement and prosecutors have to make is how to investigate, but also how to investigate within the confines of the Constitution. Uh, and, and that's where I think that this bill has struck a very good balance. Uh, I understand that there's always a lot of frustration when someone isn't able to have an investigation go forward because there's not enough evidence that would lie that would lead to something like probable cause. Uh, and I think that that's important for this committee to recognize that law enforcement, uh, we check ourselves, law enforcement prosecutors, we, we serve as a check on ourselves to make sure that we are investigating all the crimes that we suspect, but we're not exceeding those authorities that the Constitution gives. And importantly, in these cases, it requires probable cause for someone to get a search warrant, to search someone's blood, to determine whether or not they're under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time that a fatal accident occurs. If an officer in good faith doesn't believe that there's probable cause, that is in time when the officers are often checking themselves and saying, I don't believe that the Constitution permits me to go and search this area. Uh, now I think that we've raised a very important issue and what we've done is we've, we've highlighted this issue as one that's important for training, um, but also for seeking second opinions. These cases are extremely important, and I expect that because of this bill going forward, law enforcement officers who are making the decision that they can't go forward with an investigation, they will be required by statute to get a second opinion. And more likely, they'll probably be implementing some best practices where they're seeking multiple opinions and making sure that we are investigating these to the fullest extent possible so that victims in the community can be safe. Uh, but we wholly support this bill. We're grateful to the sponsor. This is a great piece of legislation and would urge your support as well. Thank you.

Morning, Mr. Vice Chair Committee. Be Mason Commissioner for the Utah Department of Public Safety. Um, like to start off thanking the senator, um, we, we have put her through the ringer with version after version of trying to get this right. And, and really, Carl said about everything that needed to, because I think we struck a balance where we protect people's Fourth Amendment rights, but we do a very thorough investigation. And coming from law enforcement, that's what we want. We want to provide the, the best investigation we can without overreaching and violating someone else's rights. And we think this bill, where it ended with sub two, strikes that cord of not only putting those, those initial things in place, but then that backend of let's verify. Because if somebody got it wrong, if the officer on scene doesn't have all the facts, that verification with a senior officer to help reiterate or maybe find, find that loophole is, is a good thing. So we fully support this bill and thank the sender for her work.

Thank you Mr. Vice Chair. Motion to adopt first sub of SB second 2 26. Second sub, second substitute. Yeah, I apologize. Second sub. Thank you everyone.

Thank you Mr. Vice Chair. Motion to favorably recommend SB 2 26 second substitute fatal motor vehicle accidents amendments.

Oh, thank you. From the public testimony, being able to see the good work of Senator Millner on this addressing this need and finding the right balance to be able to help in the future is greatly appreciated.

Thank you. And I do wanna say thank you to all the attorneys, um, and DPS for their help and trying to find a balance that could give somebody in the future, uh, a little more peace, uh, with, uh, the decision that's made.

Thank you very much. Um, I have Donika Bigelow with me today, and I'm actually running this bill because she reached out to me about this issue, and I'm gonna let her tell her story. Um, let me just briefly say two things. Um, I mean, this bill is really seeking a consistent way for us to be able, um, in fatal accidents, um, to a pedestrian or another, uh, uh, someone in another vehicle who we know the, the, uh, we know who the, the person who caused the accident. It's trying to, uh, set a process up that you can have, uh, a chemical test or a blood test, um, and do that within 24 hours, uh, of the event. Um, there have been a number of questions that have come up. DPS has come to talk to me. Um, they will provide some language, um, that, um, more is more precise language that fits with where they are. But I think what's important here is we have a story of someone who lost her husband and just doesn't feel that she has all the answers. And with that, I'm gonna turn it over to Donica.

Thank you very much. I'm Donica Bigelow and I'm the widow of Lynn Bigelow. And I wanna thank you for the opportunity to advocate for Senate Bill 2 26 fatal motor vehicle accident amendments. This past year, mother's Day was on May 11th. Lynn Bigelow, who was my husband of 30 years attended church with me prior to our two, or, um, excuse me, prior to our four adult children joining us later that afternoon on for a Mother's Day luncheon. The church building's approximately one mile from our home in Mountain Green. And when the service was over, Lynn was traveling home and was struck head on by a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction. The vehicle did not merely just drift into the opposite lane of traffic, marked by a double line, but it completely entered my husband's lane. And the impact struck the passenger side of the at-fault vehicle with the center of my husband's car. The sequence of events raised painful questions for me related to the crash, including if substance use was a factor. I'm not trying to allege that it was. However, I was very alarmed to learn that toxicology testing was not conducted in this case. That absence of information was the difference between a misdemeanor level charge and a felony level charge. The lack of the toxicology screening will forever deprive me of the peace, knowing that every possible factor was examined and considered. I'm grateful to Senator Millner and her staff who have worked to bring awareness to this important piece of legislation. And I'm hopeful that toxicology screening can become a law and a standard in Utah when there's a veh, when there's a vehicular fatality. By moving this forward, you'll be supporting justice by holding impaired offenders accountable, helping exonerate those who are not driving under the influence, providing a small level of comfort for those who are grieving, knowing that justice can prevail and making Utah roads a safer place for everyone. Thank you.

Thank you. So, um, what this bill simply does is, um, so when we have a a fatal motor vehicle accident, we should have a consistent process for toxicology processing. Um, and that right now it's at the discretion of the investigating officer, um, really trying to, um, provide the opportunity for there to be a warrant for a chemical test of the driver. Um, A DPS, uh, has concerns about how we do that. So they're gonna work on what would be the right approach to do that. Um, and they can come up and talk about it. I'll be fine with that. Um, but it does apply only to fatal accidents. Uh, it would only apply to the driver that caused the fatal accident. Um, but it would provide more information, um, to know if there's an underlying issue that caused that. Um, and I think families want that, um, information and deserve that in, in cases like this. And in this case, the officer just said didn't do it. And, um, and it's causing her great pain. Uh, um, with that, I'm open to questions on public comments, so DPS can come up.

Yes, I wanna move the amendment. I'm sorry. Yeah. Okay. Uh, move the amendment, but that's not all DPS needs that, that was requested by, uh, the attorney general's office and the drafter said he didn't realize the specificity of that, that language needed to be that way. So I, I would like to move the amendment to the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. Be Mason Commissioner for the Utah Department of Public Safety. Um, as Senator Millner said, I was able to meet with her earlier as drafted. This creates a, some consequences that, uh, our case law will conflict with. And so we, we've, uh, offered to help and, and she's been willing to, to work with us. I think, I think we can manipulate some language and get it where we need to be. It really revolves around warrants. Um, we can't mandate that everybody submit to a warrant and we have to have probable cause to get that warrant. So we need to change some language in there. Um, we've got a, a even in the last 30 minutes, we have a draft. We'll tweak that a little bit, but I think we can Helper, get closer to where we need to be. I'm not sure we can ever, um, just in, in full transparency, resolve the issue completely. Um, an officer still has to have reason to believe the person is impaired before we can, we can ask consent and we generally, from a UHP standpoint, we ask consent of the, the, uh, violator. Um, in order to get the warrant, we're gonna have to have probable cause to move forward, but I do think we can get a lot closer to where we need to be with some amended language and we will continue to work with the senator. We appreciate her willingness to do so. Thank you. Alright.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to recommend Senate Bill 2 26 fatal motor vehicle accident amendments. That was a favorable recommendation. Uh, I appreciate the work you're doing on this, and I think that there's a way we can come to a safe Blanding zone. Um, I have some questions I'll ask you afterwards about this, but thank you so much for your work on this.

Um, I think the point of this is, uh, when you have a tragic accident that causes someone's life, uh, we need to be able to have all the information to be able to make good decisions and, uh, and to provide information back to families, but also to the justice system, uh, in these cases. And this could go either way. It could exonerate somebody. Um, so I mean, I think at the end of the day, for a driver, um, that causes something like this, for some it could exonerate them and, and that doubt would go away. For others, at least it provides the courts with a level of information that they can't get otherwise.

her husband was coming home from church and a, um, truck moved over, uh, into the lane that her husband was in, and he was hit and it was a fatality. And she is suffering from the loss of her husband, but also is really, feels like that the person that caused the accident, the driver should have been tested, um, should have had a blood test for substances that may been inhibiting to his, um, ability to act. So this bill, I started thinking this was, um, you know, that this was kind of common sense that somebody that was in a fatal accident, um, that that family would want to know that, um, everyone would want to know. But then I ran into the prosecutors and the county attorneys and the defense attorneys at and DPS who said, wait a minute. Um, there has to be some kind of reasonable cause. So, um, I gathered together, I got Dan Burton, and he gathered some county attorneys and prosecuting folks, et cetera together. What you have in front of you is, um, something that's meant to balance, um, the opportunity for a family member if they disagree. 'cause right now this call is just at the office that's on the scene. And really what they want is something where there would be an opportunity for a family member to ask, um, someone else, uh, that's in the chain of command if they wanted to appeal at the scene to them. So that's what this bill does. It's not automatic, it's not any of those things, but yet it gives a family member who has, who loses someone to a deadly crash caused by a driver, um, in a vehicle, um, to be able to ask that, um, there be follow-up, uh, a follow-up blood test for chemical substances. And with that, I'm open to questions.

Yes. First substitute, uh, I like to delete and tie on body sub Senate bill 2 26 and substitute with first substitute Senate bill 2 26, which is the, uh, all of the attorneys have had an opportunity to weigh in. I'm not sure it'll still be the last time, but, um, I'm open to listening.

to move amendment one, uh, to first substitute Senate bill 2 26. It just changes a V to a and person to individual, but it was important to DPS that we do that and it didn't get picked up in the first sub, so I'd like to move that amendment.

Yes. Uh, as we discussed yesterday, um, this was a constituent who, um, lost her husband at, um, due to a motor vehicle accident on a Sunday. Somebody drove over into his lane, hit him head on, and she wanted there to be further testing. But the officer that was on, uh, if the scene did not make that decision, she asked that there be some kind of capability for a family member to be able to, um, get almost like a somebody else to also come in on that decision. Um, and what this does after working with the prosecuting attorneys, the defendants, the ags office and DPS, what we came to is that an individual could ask that someone with more seniority also review the situation and make a determination, uh, about, about whether it would be proper, uh, to do additional testing. And with that, I'm open to questions.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, uh, SB 1 53.

hits another car and causes a fatality and the family would like to have a second opinion, they could appeal to a higher level of supervision in DPS on whether or not there should be further testing for impairment. Um, I have worked through this bill with all the attorneys, prosecutors, ags office in uh, uh, DPS and probably will have one more amendment house committee, but that's just clarifying language. Um, and open to questions.

Senator Millner, in your presentation you talked about a family who wanted a second opinion, but just reading your long title, it just says it directs a peace officer investigating a fatal, fatal motor vehicle accident to pursue a warrant for a drug test for a surviving driver. We probably need to get that changed.

Okay. Because, because If you go back to the bill and you look at it, what it does is it says that they can request that, um, they go to, uh, could You provide a line number, uh, Just a minute, Uh, line. If you go to section seven line beginning with line 1 0 6 to 1 1 10, it says, of a peace officer investigating a VE motor vehicle accident resulting in the death of an individual believes there's insufficient cause to justify search warrant authorizing a chemical test, the peace officer shall consult with a senior officer, uh, regarding the lack of probable cause before declining to seek a search warrant. Okay, so that just gives another level of review. Um, I have a constituent whose husband was killed on Sunday coming home from church and really felt there ought to be more due diligence in this. And that's what this does. Alright,

Senator Stratton. Thank you Mr. President Pro In this bill. We're trying to do three things. Uh, let me just give a little background real quick.

Madam Marine Clerk Second substitute Senate Bill 2 26, fatal Motor Vehicle Accident Amendments by Senator Millner. This bill was heard in law enforcement and Criminal Justice with vote 7 0 4.

Motion To circle. Thank you Representative.

Senator Vickers Baldy Aye. Lewin f Brammer Bus Comore Escamia Aye. Fillmore Grover Harper Aye. Kins Ipson Johnson Juab McKay Mikel Milner Musselman Owens Pitcher Plum Rebe Sandal Stevenson Stratton Bickers Weiler Wilson Winterton, president Adams

Thank you Mr. President. Uh, motion to concur. Okay. Um, the House, uh, Jordan Teer had a, an updated, uh, child support schedule for high income people and he subbed that into my bill with my permission,

Uh, thank you Mr. Speakers. Sadly, the genesis of this bill, uh, began one Sunday when a gentleman was on his way home from church and was hit head on by a drunk driver and killed. Uh, the, uh, individual wasn't, uh, quickly tested for impairment, which impaired the charges, I believe that could be filed. Uh, this bill simply updates U Utah Procedures for chemical testing in a fatal motor vehicle accident involving a suspected DUI or drug impairment. Clarin clarifying when testing is required and adding oversight to, uh, warrant decisions. Uh, it's basically very straightforward to make sure evidence is collected that can be used to either convict or exonerate an individual involved in an extremely serious fatal accident. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll waive. Thank You. Summation has been waived.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to encircle house bill three 14 or Senate bill three 14.