BILL NUMBER: S6485A
SPONSOR: RYAN C
 
TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the vehicle and traffic law, in relation to procedures
relating to driving while ability impaired by drugs; and providing for
the repeal of such provisions upon expiration thereof
 
PURPOSE OF THE BILL:
To update and modernize New York's laws regarding driving while impaired
by drugs.
 
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS:
Section 1: Amends Section 114-a of the Vehicle and Traffic Law by adding
to the definition of "drug" to include "any substance or combination of
substances that impair, to any extent, physical or mental abilities".
Section 2: Adds a new definition of "impairment".
Section 3: Adds a new definition of "intoxication".
Section 4: Amends Section 1194 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law to update
the procedures for field testing of drivers suspected of being under the
influence of drugs to include the use of oral/bodily fluid tests.
Refusal to submit to such field tests is specified to be a traffic
infraction. Evaluations by a drug recognition expert are added to the
deem consent and evidentiary testing provisions. Provides that drivers
who refuse examination by a drug recognition expert would face a loss of
driving privileges similar to refusing a chemical test for alcohol. This
section also allows a court to order a chemical test in crashes involv-
ing personal injury and/or a driver with a previous arrest for
drunk/drugged driving. Additionally, it allows the "the odor of cannabis
or burnt cannabis" to be used to support "reasonable cause" in an appli-
cation for a court order to compel submission to a chemical test.
Section 5: Subparagraph (7) of paragraph (e) or subdivision (2) of
section 1193 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law are amended to update the
law regarding suspension of licenses pending prosecution to reflect
updates to the definitions of driving while under the influence of drugs
and provide for such suspensions for alleged drugged drivers under
designated circumstances.
Section 6: Section 1192 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law is amended by
adding new subdivisions 13 and 14. New subdivision 13 provides for an
affirmative defense to driving under the influence of drugs if the
person was having an allergic reaction or medical emergency. Subdivi-
sion 14 requires the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles
and the Commissioner of the Division of Criminal Justice Services to
collect data on the number of stops, arrests and convictions made under
this bill while providing demographic data and providing that report to
the Governor, Assembly and Senate.
Section 7: Establishes the effective date.
 
JUSTIFICATION:
The rising number of roadway fatalities was described by U.S. Transpor-
tation Secretary Pete Buttigieg as a national crisis on March 2, 2022.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported in
June of 2021 that nationally 56% of drivers involved in serious injury
and fatal crashes tested positive for at least one drug. In New York 40%
of fatal and injury crashes in 2020 were drug-related. With the legali-
zation of adult use cannabis and the continued problems associated with
"synthetic drugs", New York's laws regarding driving under the influence
of drugs need to be updated to ensure public safety on the roads. New
York is only one of a handful of states that requires a drug to be list-
ed in statute to trigger a drugged driving violation. The list does not
keep pace with the proliferation of rapidly changing synthetic drugs.
The result is impaired drivers are allowed to endanger themselves and
others with impunity. This bill would correct this by amending the defi-
nition of drug in the Vehicle and Traffic Law to include "any substance
or combination of substances that impair, to any extent, physical or
mental abilities". This language would combat the growing number of
synthetic drugs that have the chemical composition constantly changed to
avoid enforcement.
The terms "impaired" and "intoxicated" have distinct meanings but have
not been statutorily defined leading to uncertainty. This bill codifies
the definitions enunciated more than 40 years ago by the Court of
Appeals in People v. Cruz, 48 N.Y.2nd 419 (1979) and People v. Ardila,
85 N.Y.2nd 846 (1995) and extends them to all impairing substances.
Courts and practitioners had been familiar with the application of these
terms until a recent Appellate Division decision conflated them in
People v. Caden N., 189 A.D.3rd 84 (3rd Dept.2020). This legislation
will re-establish "impaired" and "intoxicated" as separate standards.
The two standards are necessary to recognize the distinct and scientif-
ically supported danger of drug impaired driving.
This legislation also updates New York law regarding field testing for
drugged driving to include the use of oral/bodily fluids. This testing
screens for the recent use of multiple types of drugs. Scientifically
establishing recency will assist law enforcement to properly identify
actually impaired drivers. Oral fluid testing has been the subject of
dozens of studies and pilot programs over more than a decade. NHTSA
published an evaluation of On-Site Oral Fluid Drug Screening Technology
in April 2021 and identified methods that meet established accuracy and
sensitivity standards. Non-invasive oral fluid testing will reduce the
number of dangerously impaired drivers on New York's roadways. Vehicle
and Traffic Law section 1194(1) (b) requires drivers to submit to a
field test at the request of a police officer. Section 1800(a) makes it
a traffic infraction to violate any of the provisions of the Vehicle and
Traffic Law. Recent court decisions have invalidated charging a traffic
infraction for refusing to submit to a field test.There is no longer a
consequence for violating this mandatory public safety provision. This
bill provides that refusing to submit to a field test is a traffic
infraction.
Drug recognition evaluations were developed fifty years ago and vali-
dated in the 1980s. Certified Drug Recognition Experts (DREs) determine
whether a driver's impairment is due to drug use rather than neurologi-
cal conditions, illness, or disease. A DRE evaluation helps to ensure
that drivers who are actually impaired by cannabis and drugs are charged
as New York State law requires. The mere presence of a drug in a driv-
er's system is not sufficient. The mere presence of a drug in a driver's
system is not sufficient. A driver who refuses to submit to a drug
recognition evaluation, a chemical test (or a field test) hampers the
investigation that will either support an arrest or exonerate the driv-
er. This bill provides the same license revocation for refusing a DRE
exam that already exists for refusing a chemical test.
It is well-settled that states have a paramount interest in preserving
public highway safety. Administrative license sanctions encouraging
testing are commonplace and appropriate tools in New York's efforts to
prevent impaired driving and save lives. This legislation corrects
disparate court decisions that provide different standards for consent-
ing to a chemical test and refusing. The public safety policy of encour-
aging testing is not served by a time limit for refusals. A refusal at
any time after arrest will result in a license revocation and shall be
admissible in any trial, proceeding or hearing.
Additionally, the bill expands the circumstances where a court can order
a compulsory chemical test in a suspected drunk or drugged driving
crash. Currently, it can only be done in crashes where there is death or
serious physical injury. The new statute includes language from the
Leaving the Scene of an Incident statute and expands compulsory tests
supported by probable cause to any crash with personal injury and/or
where the driver has a history of convictions for impaired driving.
Finally, it updates the law regarding suspension of licenses pending
prosecution by adding drugged drivers with charges supported by testing
or admissions. The provision reflects the bill's updates to the defi-
nitions of driving while under the influence of drugs. This is done to
keep dangerous drivers off the road pending prosecution.
 
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
2023-2024: A.174; 2022: A.9554
 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
To be determined.
 
EFFECTIVE DAVE:
This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeeding the
date on which it shall have become a law and be deemed repealed five
years after such effective date.

Statutes affected:
S6485: 114-a vehicle and traffic law
S6485A: 114-a vehicle and traffic law, 1192 vehicle and traffic law