LANSING – Some lawmakers said they are optimistic about advancing legislation to allow law enforcement agencies to use roadside saliva tests to detect drug-impaired drivers.
Bills introduced by Reps. Brian BeGole, R-Perry, and Julie Rogers, D-Kalamazoo, are part of a bipartisan effort to improve road safety by targeting drug-impaired driving.
They would allow for a roadside preliminary oral fluid test that officers could use to screen drivers for the presence of controlled substances, similar to the breathalyzer used to detect alcohol.
“This is just a tool to help officers, not necessarily make an arrest, but to make sure they are not arresting someone that shouldn’t be arrested,” BeGole said.
In 2024, of the 1,012 fatal crashes in Michigan, 246 (24.3%) were drug-involved, with at least one drugged operator, bicyclist or pedestrian, according to State Police data.
That year, the number of drug-involved crashes increased by 3%, from 2,250 in 2023 to 2,315 in 2024. Statistics for 2025 are not yet available.
The bills – which face opposition from cannabis advocates – passed the House last year but haven’t moved forward in the Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety Committee.
According to Rogers, the legislation would be part of a multi-step process to help determine whether a driver is under the influence of drugs.
When a police officer sees erratic driving, he or she may pull over and assess the driver’s behavior. If impaired driving is suspected, the officer would first ask to do a field sobriety test, which may include walking a line or counting backwards.
If the driver fails any of these tests, the officer would then be able to administer a first oral fluid test to screen for the presence of six drugs: amphetamine, benzodiazepines, cocaine, methamphetamine, opioids and delta-9-THC, the primary active component of cannabis.
“If the device lights up for the presence of one of those six drugs, then the officer would do a second test, which is more sophisticated,” Rogers said. That second oral fluid test would be sent to a laboratory to determine the amount of a drug in someone’s system.
It would replace a blood test that is currently performed by a nurse or phlebotomist at a medical facility, which Rogers supports amidst a “staffing issue” in health care.
The blood test currently “takes that health care professional off of performing other health care duties, in a time where we can’t afford to take someone out of the emergency room,” she said.
Supporters include the Michigan Sheriffs’ Association.
“It would be nice to have the roadside testing,” said association Executive Director Matthew Saxton, “but we’ve got to make the stops first.”
Saxton said that since his time in law enforcement, officers have moved away from focusing on traffic safety to making stops for crime reduction. “We need to get back to doing traffic enforcement for safety reasons.”
On the other side, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan opposes the legislation.
Although the ACLU “wants impaired drivers off the road, there are fundamental problems with expanding roadside saliva testing,” policy strategist Gabrielle Dresner wrote last year in a letter to the House Government Operations Committee.
Citing conflicting reports, validity and privacy concerns, Dresner’s letter said, “These tests provide no indication of a driver’s actual impairment” when it comes to cannabis. “As THC can remain present in the body long after impairment, the presence of THC alone is not an accurate indicator of intoxication.”
Ryan Bringold, a founding board member of the Michigan Weedsters Association, said testing for cannabis should be removed from the bills.
Bringold said that because Michigan law allows what it calls “internal possession” — the presence of marijuana in a person’s body from smoking or consuming it — the legislation would create a contradictory law that would “do nothing except set up court battles.”
“Why would you test me for something that I’m already allowed to have?” he asked.
However, Rogers said the bills wouldn’t prohibit people from using marijuana, but “there is nothing in the existing statue that says that you can drive a vehicle under the influence of one of these substances.”
Other sponsors include Reps. Dave Prestin, R-Cedar River; Ken Borton, R-Gaylord; Jennifer Wortz, R-Quincy; Curtis VanderWall, R-Ludington; Douglas Wozniak, R-Shelby Township and Tom Kunse, R-Clare.
Why haven’t the bills passed yet?
“It really has nothing to do with the policy,” Rogers said.
Instead, it’s a small piece of a bigger picture, in which many proposals moved slowly, if at all, in the Legislature last year.
“We have been the most unproductive in the history of the Legislature,” Rogers said.
With Republicans in control of the House and Democrats leading the Senate, lawmakers last year sent a record low of only 74 bills to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer for signature.
BeGole said he’s optimistic about the bills’ prospects: “I think we’re probably going to get a hearing on it.”
According to his legislative director, Daniel McMaster, there’s been a “standoff” in the Legislature since the budget passed in October, and a lot of legislation was not being passed.
“That’s started now, and you’re starting to see us pass and take up Democratic bills on the House floor, and the Senate is doing the same thing with Republican bills,” he said.
Still, with scheduling delays and backed up bills, it may be a couple of months before the drug testing bills can move forward, according to McMaster.
Questions about this story? Contact Capital News Service editor Eric Freedman at freedma5@msu.edu
