Judiciary committee reviews H.44 changes on CDL rules, blood-warrant language and court reporting to DMV

The Judiciary Committee heard testimony May 14 on H.44 that would change how Vermont statutes reference federal rules for commercial driver's licenses, revise language requiring collection of evidentiary blood when a warrant is issued, create a task force to study DUI processing delays, and add reporting requirements from courts to the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Marshall (testifier) said the bill replaces a prior cross-reference to federal regulation with the regulation's text in state statute to make the law easier to read. “When the federal regulation changes and we've incorporated that into a statute, it's essentially changing the substance of our statute without us knowing it,” Marshall said, noting that carrying regulatory text into statute means the state will have to track any federal changes and update state law as needed.

Marshall described the change as a deliberate trade-off: importing the language improves clarity for lay readers and practitioners but creates an administrative obligation to keep state statute aligned with federal rules — particularly for rules tied to the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS). He added that the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) would likely be the operational entity responsible for monitoring and requesting statutory updates if federal regulations change.

On evidence-collection wording, Marshall said the bill edits several provisions (pages 5–6 and page 9 in the draft) to require that a person “shall submit to the collection of an evidentiary blood sample when a warrant for that person's blood is issued” and to make it an offense to “knowingly hinder the collection of an evidentiary blood sample when a warrant for that person's blood is issued.” Marshall told the committee those changes flip prior wording and remove language that could be read as compelling speech or consent, which he said could raise constitutional concerns.

Marshall also told the committee he supports creation of a task force in the bill to study bottlenecks that lengthen detention time for DUI processing and to identify ways to speed cases through the system.

Tom Zuna, chief superior judge, said the courts have no objection to the bill's substance but raised a drafting concern about overlapping reporting requirements. Zuna pointed to draft 2.1, page 20, line 17 (within a section titled orders of adjudication for delinquencies) and warned that language added in a different section appears to require that “any merits adjudication” be sent to the commissioner of motor vehicles within 10 days. He said the statute that specifically lists the adjudications that must be reported appears in a different, narrower section, and the current draft could be read as broader than intended.

“We don't have any objections,” Zuna said, then explained that the conflict could cause operational confusion and that the court administration would likely resolve it internally if the legislature did not fix the draft. He urged that the drafters consider removing the broader reporting clause or clarifying it in the miscellaneous bill or by operational guidance before third reading.

Committee members asked clarifying questions about which office would monitor federal regulatory changes and about whether the reporting language could be fixed administratively. Marshall and Zuna both indicated the DMV and court administration, respectively, would likely handle operational fixes, and both suggested statutory cleanup could be done in a future miscellaneous bill if not corrected immediately.

No formal vote or committee action on H.44 was taken during the testimony. The committee proceeded to other pending items after the witnesses finished their remarks.