Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impaired Driving topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee advances bill creating impaired‑driving task force and tightening warrant‑based blood draws
Summary
The Senate Appropriations Committee voted to act favorably on H.44, which creates an impaired‑driving process task force, adds a mandate to submit to warrant‑based blood draws and establishes a criminal refusal penalty for obstructing execution of those warrants.
Get email alerts on the Impaired Driving topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Senate Appropriations Committee voted to act favorably on H.44 on May 9, advancing a bill that creates an impaired‑driving task force and requires submission to warrant‑based blood draws when a warrant is issued.
The bill, described by Ben Novogrossi of the Office of Legislative Council as “inaccurately miscellaneous amendments to the laws governing impaired driving,” makes mostly technical changes and establishes a seven‑member impaired driving process and task force charged with recommending ways to reduce the duration of roadside holds and the paperwork burden on law enforcement.
Novogrossi said the bill also “adds a mandate to submit to the blood draw when there’s a warrant, and then, a criminal refusal penalty is created if they can knowingly hinder the law enforcement’s ... execution of that warrant.” He said the task force will examine constitutional and statutory limitations related to implied consent, methods to minimize roadside detention while remaining constitutionally compliant, and other issues it deems appropriate. The group must convene its first meeting by Aug. 1 and may meet up to six times; it must file a report with the House and Senate judiciary committees by Nov. 15.
James Duffy of the Joint Fiscal Office told the committee the fiscal impact tied to the bill is limited to the study group’s expenses. “JFO estimates it would probably be about $3,500 to $4,000 cost to cost all study commission members,” he said, and characterized that amount as de minimis relative to the Department of Public Safety budget.
Committee discussion focused on the difference between roadside implied‑consent tests (which can be refused) and warrant‑required blood draws (a more invasive procedure that requires judicial authorization). Novogrossi noted practical medical‑practice considerations: even with a warrant, a health care provider may seek consent before drawing blood. The bill also provides that members not otherwise entitled to reimbursement may receive compensation under the applicable statute.
The committee recorded a roll call of 4‑0‑3 and moved the bill forward favorably. The committee did not take additional policy amendments during the proceeding.
The task force created by H.44 will include designees from the chief judge of the superior court, the defender general, the commissioner of public safety and the commissioner of motor vehicles; the executive director of the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs (or designee); the president of the Vermont Sheriffs’ Association (or designee); and a representative from the Vermont Police Association (or designee).

