House Judiciary Committee reviews H.44 changes on blood draws and CDL reporting

Members of the House Judiciary Committee reviewed proposed Senate amendments to H.44, a bill that would change how Vermont treats evidentiary blood collection in DUI cases and how certain convictions for commercial driver’s license (CDL) holders are reported.

The amendments matter because they seek to align state practice with federal reporting rules for CDLs and to narrow criminal liability for obstructing blood collection so that incapacitated people are not automatically treated as criminals.

Ben Novogratzky, ALC Legislative Council staff, told the committee “there really only are 3 changes” between the House-passed and Senate-amended versions. He said the first change, at the start of the text, was suggested by the Department of Motor Vehicles to comply with federal rules governing CDL holders. “This makes sure that any CDL drivers, if it was an offense or violation other than parking vehicle weight or vehicle defect violations are reported, to the national database,” Novogratzky said, explaining the amendment would require reporting certain convictions to the national CDL database.

Dennis Wiggins, traffic safety resource prosecutor for the Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs, told the committee that commercial driver’s licenses are federal and that Vermont must conform to the national scheme. “Commercial, driver's licenses aren't state issued. They're federal, licenses,” Wiggins said. He added the federal program limits how state prosecutors and courts can resolve certain cases and said the change to report specified offenses “is appropriate under the circumstances.”

The second substantive amendment replaces earlier wording that a person “shall not refuse” collection of an evidentiary blood sample with a requirement that a person “shall submit” to collection. Committee members clarified that the change was intended to avoid implying an implied‑consent doctrine for all situations and to reflect how court orders and warrants operate. One committee member explained that a warrant directs the officer to obtain a blood draw, not that the subject must be spoken to about consent.

The third change adds a mental‑element requirement for criminal liability when someone “hinders” collection of a blood sample. Novogratzky said the Senate committee added language making it necessary to “knowingly” hinder collection so that merely being limp or incapacitated would not be treated as a criminal refusal: the prohibition now targets “some sort of affirmative action to hinder that collection rather than just sort of being just limp and incapacitated.” Wiggins said Vermont case law and U.S. precedents such as Schmerber v. California and North Dakota v. Neville inform how refusal and compelled-speech issues are analyzed.

Committee members and witnesses also discussed how breath and blood samples differ in the statutes (the committee noted separate statutory provisions apply when breath tests are at issue), the role of a warrant when a subject refuses, and defenses such as voluntary intoxication in litigation about whether a person knowingly hindered collection. Greg Cochran, director of enforcement and safety, said the DMV-related language change “covers our federal guidelines.”

The committee did not take a final vote on H.44 during the discussion. Staff said they would circulate a side‑by‑side comparison of the House and Senate texts: Novogratzky said he would send his comparison to legislative staff for distribution, and the committee chair indicated an edited final version would be available after the floor session.