SHB 1228
In CommitteeHouse
Toxicology testing
Concerning toxicology testing by certified or accredited laboratories.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill updates how toxicology test results (blood and breath) are used and validated in Washington’s DUI cases, especially when alcohol or THC levels are below the legal per se limits. It tightens requirements for lab certification, blood draw procedures, and breath test validity to improve reliability and fairness in court.
- Allows evidence of alcohol or THC levels below the legal limits (BAC < 0.08 or THC < 5.0 ng/mL) to be considered alongside other evidence in DUI cases.
- Requires blood and breath tests used in court to be conducted by labs certified or accredited under the ISO/IEC 17025 standard for forensic toxicology.
- Updates blood draw procedures: specifies who may legally draw blood (e.g., nurses, physicians, certified phlebotomists), where (e.g., in a licensed ambulance), and under what conditions (e.g., sterile equipment, patient position).
- Clarifies admissibility standards for breath tests, including requirements for instrument calibration, observation periods, and external standard results (e.g., simulator solution temperature must be 34°C ± 0.3°C).
- Ensures individuals have the right to obtain and submit to additional independent tests, and to receive full information about tests administered by law enforcement.
Who is affected
- People accused of DUI — People charged with driving under the influence (DUI) or related offenses, especially those with alcohol or THC levels below the legal per se limits (e.g., BAC < 0.08 or THC < 5.0 ng/mL), as the bill clarifies how such evidence can be used in court.
- Law enforcement officers — Law enforcement officers who conduct or rely on toxicology tests in DUI investigations, as the bill sets clearer standards for test validity, admissibility, and who may draw blood.
- Forensic toxicology laboratories — Certified or accredited forensic toxicology laboratories that perform blood or breath testing for legal cases, as the bill now requires ISO/IEC 17025 certification or accreditation for test validity.
- Healthcare and forensic phlebotomy professionals — Healthcare professionals (e.g., nurses, physicians, certified phlebotomists) who draw blood for legal testing, as the bill specifies who is authorized to do so and under what conditions.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Allowing evidence of alcohol/THC below per se limits to be considered alongside other evidence helps prevent guilty drivers from evading conviction due to technical loopholes—especially important for drivers with impaired psychomotor skills despite low concentrations, improving public safety outcomes.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)Mandating ISO/IEC 17025 certification for forensic labs significantly raises the bar for analytical reliability, reducing the risk of erroneous convictions based on flawed or unvalidated testing methods—protecting innocent people from wrongful DUI convictions.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(a)(ii)Standardizing simulator solution temperature to 34°C ± 0.3°C improves breath test accuracy and consistency, reducing false positives caused by instrument calibration drift—especially important for individuals near the legal limit who may be falsely accused.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)(iv)Specifying qualified personnel and sterile collection conditions for blood draws reduces risks of infection, hemolysis, or contamination—protecting the health and rights of individuals undergoing involuntary blood draws during DUI investigations.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5) & (6)Explicitly guaranteeing the right to an independent test and full disclosure of test information strengthens due process by enabling defendants to meaningfully challenge the state’s evidence—reducing the risk of wrongful convictions in technical, science-based prosecutions.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(7) & (8)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill’s requirement that forensic labs be ISO/IEC 17025-certified may reduce the number of labs capable of performing court-admissible tests, potentially causing delays in test processing and backlogs in DUI prosecutions—especially in rural counties with limited lab access—thereby slowing case resolution and increasing pretrial detention times for accused individuals.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1(3)(a)(ii)By restricting who may draw blood to specific licensed or certified professionals—and requiring collection in specific settings like ambulances—the bill may increase the logistical burden and cost of blood draws, especially in rural or low-resource jurisdictions, potentially leading to more breath-only tests or missed opportunities for accurate testing, which could reduce evidence quality in cases where blood testing is medically indicated.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5) & (6)While the bill expands the right to an independent test, it does not require law enforcement to facilitate access to such testing (e.g., by providing transport or time), meaning low-income or unrepresented individuals may be unable to exercise this right in practice—reducing its practical benefit despite the theoretical expansion of rights.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(7)The breath test agreement requirement (±10% of mean) may be too lenient for low-concentration samples, where small absolute differences represent large relative errors—potentially allowing inaccurate results to stand as prima facie evidence in borderline cases, especially for drivers with BAC near 0.08.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)(vi)The bill may impose new costs on local law enforcement agencies and forensic labs to achieve ISO/IEC 17025 compliance, including equipment upgrades, staff training, and certification fees—costs that may fall disproportionately on smaller or underfunded agencies, especially in rural counties.
Local GovernmentRef: Fiscal Impact (summary)
Who Is Most Affected
People accused of DUI benefit significantly from stronger evidentiary safeguards and expanded rights to challenge test results—especially those with BAC/THC near the per se limit who may otherwise be convicted on flawed or unchallengable evidence.
Law enforcement gains clearer, more defensible testing protocols that reduce the risk of evidence being excluded at trial—but also face new operational burdens (e.g., training, documentation) and may see increased costs for compliance.
Forensic labs that achieve ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation may gain new business opportunities, but smaller labs may be priced out of the market due to certification costs—consolidating the industry and potentially reducing competition.
Healthcare and forensic phlebotomy professionals gain clearer legal authorization to draw blood in legal contexts—but must meet new training, certification, and procedural requirements that may increase liability exposure and operational complexity.