Committee approves technical amendments to H.105, adds review pathway for automatic license suspensions

The Judiciary Committee on May 20 approved a package of technical amendments to H.105 that revise the statute’s definition of “highway” to exclude driveways serving one- or two-family residences and add a pre-complaint civil review option for automatic license suspensions arising from the diversion program.

Ben Novogrovsky, an attorney with the Office of Legislative Council, told the committee the set of edits largely came from a judge’s late review and are intended to clean up drafting errors and clarify procedure. “If you are in your driveway, you cannot be cited for a civil violation,” Novogrovsky said, describing the practical effect of the driveway exclusion. He also said the amendments add a path to seek review under Rule 75 of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure for the initial automatic suspension notice and name the commissioner of motor vehicles as the official responsible for that administrative action.

The changes, described in the amendment labeled H.105.04 at the hearing, make three main adjustments: (1) replace the cross‑reference for the definition of “highway” so that a driveway that serves only a single‑family or two‑family residence is excluded for purposes of the subchapter, with exceptions where operation on a driveway causes death, bodily injury or property damage; (2) clarify that the initial automatic suspension is imposed by the commissioner of motor vehicles; and (3) add language allowing a person subject to an automatic suspension to seek review of that imposition under Rule 75 prior to the filing of a complaint in the Judicial Bureau.

Novogrovsky told the committee the complaint that begins adjudication of the underlying violation is filed by the state in the Judicial Bureau if the person does not enroll in or complete the diversion program. He described the reform as an expansion of an existing, civil review process already used to contest diversion program decisions. “This is not unprecedented,” he said, noting the statute already incorporates civil‑procedure review for diversion program matters.

Committee members asked several clarifying questions about who may seek review and the interaction between the diversion program and the civil filing. One member asked whether the person who files the complaint is the state; Novogrovsky confirmed that the state files with the Judicial Bureau if the diversion pathway is not completed. Another asked whether the review option affects criminal prosecution; Novogrovsky said it does not, adding that criminal charges may still proceed if facts warrant.

Senators present voted 4‑0‑1 to record support for the amendment package; Senator Matos was absent. A committee member described the procedure as somewhat “clunky” given current timelines but said the drafting could be revisited next year if members want the suspension review to mirror the separate civil suspension process used in standard DUI cases. Novogrovsky said the committee would circulate a clean copy of the amendment and that the bill text would be posted the next day.

The amendments change statutory cross‑references and procedure but do not eliminate either the civil or criminal avenues that may follow an alleged violation. The committee recorded its approval and will present a clean copy of the amendment for the formal record and subsequent consideration.