The Arkansas House on Thursday voted 80-2 to change the driving-while-intoxicated law, ensuring the state won't lose nearly $60 million in federal highway funding.
After failing twice Tuesday, legislation making an alcohol-related DWI a "strict liability" offense passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. The bill then passed the Senate in a 25-6 vote Wednesday.
Under strict liability, the state wouldn't have to prove that a driver intended to be intoxicated or was even aware of being impaired.
The change would not affect people who only are under the influence of prescription drugs.
One lawmaker said the issue is complicated.
"It just can't easily be addressed, and this is what we've been asked to address to get our highway funding," said Rep. Camille Bennett, D-Lonoke, on the House floor.
Several senators had previously expressed concern about moving to a strict-liability standard for people taking prescription drugs.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Jeremy Hutchinson, R-Little Rock, said a prescription drug taken four days earlier that came up in a blood test could have been used to help obtain a conviction.
"[Blood-alcohol content of] 0.8 is good. It's clear. It's measurable. It's 'you were drunk,'" he said. "I think a judge needs to hear all of the facts on a [controlled substance]. It's not clear and concise."
The state's DWI law was put on the special session agenda by Gov. Asa Hutchinson after state highway officials learned that an Arkansas Supreme Court ruling in late April threatened to put the state out of compliance with federal requirements for some types of road aid.
The case was filed by Robert Leeka, who was arrested in August 2013 in Springdale for driving while intoxicated. After his conviction in Washington County Circuit Court, he asked the state Supreme Court to overturn it.
Leeka did not test positive for alcohol, but he was under the influence of a prescribed sleep aid, one which is known to have a side effect that can cause "sleep-driving."
He argued that he had not intended to be impaired when he got behind the wheel and was therefore innocent of the charge.
In April, the state's high court reversed his conviction, agreeing with Leeka that the state hadn't shown that he had a "culpable mental state."
Absent that, prosecutors would have to use a "reckless" standard and show that he took steps before driving that he should have reasonably known could run afoul of the law.
That hadn't been established.
Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department attorney Rita Looney said the law on which the ruling was based -- if unchanged -- exposed Arkansas to a loss of federal funding.
Politics on 05/29/2015