AUGUSTA – A series of car accidents that left seriously injured victims over the past few years has prompted a legislator to propose a bill that would expand police officers’ ability to administer blood alcohol tests to drivers.

Opponents say the proposal threatens citizens’ constitutional right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

Rep. James Schatz, D-Blue Hill, who submitted the bill, said he just wants police to have the ability to gather evidence against potentially drunk drivers.

“If somebody is damaged for life, and it’s due to somebody’s behavior, not just purely an accident, but because they were driving under the influence of alcohol, (the victim) should have recourse,” he said.

Maine law now allows police to ask for blood alcohol tests in car accidents involving death or the likely death of someone, even if they do not have probable cause. The results are collected and then a court determines whether or not the evidence can be submitted.

Schatz’s proposal would extend that right to cases where the victim suffers from a “serious bodily injury” as defined by Maine law.

Evert Fowle, district attorney for Kennebec and Somerset counties and president of the Maine Prosecutors Association, testified in support of the bill, which had a public hearing last week before the Legislature’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.

The Maine Supreme Court upheld the constitutional exception for police to collect all the evidence they can, with or without probable cause, in cases where someone has died or appears to be dying, Fowle said.

“They collect the evidence and the court determines later whether the evidence should be admissible,” he said in an interview Monday. “If they didn’t collect the evidence and the court later determined it could be admissible, it would be too late. So this bill wants to extend that provision to cases where people are seriously injured.”

But opponents of the proposal, including the Maine Civil Liberties Union and the Maine Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said the bill is overly broad.

“Everyone sort of rattles swords when it comes to the Constitution, but this is yet another continued erosion of our fundamental rights to be left alone,” said Walter McKee, a representative of MACDL. “If you reduce (the Maine Supreme Court’s decision) down to bodily injury, it becomes a very slippery slope.”

Shenna Bellows, executive director of MCLU, said law enforcement already is permitted to administer blood alcohol tests when there is probable cause.

“We think the bill is too broad,” she said. “One of our concerns is this bill creates too large of an exception to the 4th Amendment, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, by leaving it up to the discretion of an officer about whether a ‘serious bodily injury’ has occurred.”

Schatz said he wasn’t interested in taking away individuals’ rights, only helping protect victims.

“I’m trying to straddle that issue,” he said.

Rep. L. Gary Knight, R-Livermore Falls, said there’s no doubt more testing should happen.

“In my 18 years experience as an EMT, I can say that very frequently automobile accidents were alcohol-related and the drivers weren’t always tested,” he said. “We need to somehow figure out how to address this. I don’t want to take anyone’s civil liberties away, but I think Rep. Schatz is raising a bonafide, serious issue.”

Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia allow forced blood alcohol testing in cases of either death or serious injury, according to the National Council of State Legislatures.

“A majority of laws that allow for such tests include accidents that cause serious physical injury, in addition to death,” said Anne Teigen, a NCSL policy specialist.

The bill will be worked on in committee later this week.