Driving under the influence: blood tests.

Under existing law, a person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood, breath, or urine, as specified, for the purpose of determining the alcoholic or drug content of his or her blood if lawfully arrested for one of specified driving-under-the-influence offenses. The United States Supreme Court, in Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016) 136 S.Ct. 2160, held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution permitted warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving, but did not permit warrantless blood tests incident to arrests for drunk driving, and held that a motorist cannot be punished criminally for his or her refusal to submit to a blood test. The court held that administrative penalties could be imposed for a refusal to submit to a blood test for those purposes. This bill would amend statutory law to comport with the Birchfield decision. The bill would repeal the imposition of criminal penalties for the refusal by a person to submit to or complete a blood test for the purpose of determining the alcoholic or drug content of his or her blood if lawfully arrested for one of specified driving-under-the-influence offenses. The bill would clarify that a person is required to be told that his or her failure to submit to, or the failure to complete, the required breath, blood, or urine tests will result in administrative suspension or revocation by the Department of Motor Vehicles of the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle, as specified.