Committee reviews H.86 changes to move many Fish & Wildlife violations to civil process; members seek objective criteria and Fish & Wildlife input

The House Judiciary Committee discussed draft language in H.86 that would shift default jurisdiction for many Department of Fish and Wildlife violations from the criminal division of Superior Court to the Judicial Bureau as minor civil violations, unless objective criteria indicate criminal referral.

Michael Grady, Office of Legislative Council, presented a draft judiciary amendment intended for the environment committee and summarized the proposed objective triggers. The amendment would treat an alleged Fish & Wildlife violation as a minor violation provided objective, factual conditions existed when the violation was issued: the offender had no prior history; no evidence was seized in relation to the violation; no criminal warrant was used in relation to the violation; and there was no possibility of forfeiture tied to the offense.

Judge Zonay reviewed the draft and told the committee that removing subjective language would better ensure objective determinations. "Judge Zonay testified that ... those determinations should effectively be past tense so that all of these determinations are made or are factual occurrences, and then the violation is issued," Michael Grady said.

Why it matters: The change would alter where Fish & Wildlife enforcement actions are adjudicated and would determine when an alleged violation is treated as civil (with a Judicial Bureau process) or criminal (in Superior Court). Committee members focused on how warnings should be handled: House Environment expressed concern about classifying warnings as violations because warnings are not contestable and could count as a prior offense that escalates future charges into criminal court.

Key points from the discussion

- The draft seeks to convert criteria such as "no evidence was seized" and "no criminal warrant was used" into objective, past‑tense facts rather than discretionary decisions by wardens or officers in the field.

- House Environment committee members told Judiciary that the department wants warnings to be recorded as violations (they appear in Valcourt) but that Environment opposes treating non‑contestable warnings as prior violations that would push later offenses into criminal jurisdiction.

- Committee members requested the Department of Fish and Wildlife or its general counsel appear as witnesses so members can ask how warnings, evidence seizures and warrants are recorded and how shifting jurisdiction would work in practice.

- Members proposed replacing language that required determinations "in order to further investigate" with broader, objectively measurable language such as "no evidence was seized in relation to the violation" and "no criminal warrant was used in relation to the violation." Ian suggested removing the phrase "in order to further investigate" to avoid a narrow factual loophole.

What was not decided

No vote was taken. The committee asked staff to invite Fish & Wildlife general counsel or other departmental witnesses for technical clarifications and said it would seek a straw poll after that hearing.

Ending

The Judiciary Committee will seek direct departmental input on record-keeping of warnings and objective criteria for criminal referral, then return to the issue for a recorded committee position or straw poll.