Lawmakers, DMV seek clarity that new driver-record category remains sealed

On May 8, members of the Judiciary Committee heard testimony from Matt Russo, deputy commissioner for the Department of Motor Vehicles, and Ben Novogrowski of the Office of Legislative Council about draft changes to how the DMV would hold records for people who complete a newly defined program.

Committee members pressed whether the bill’s language that records be kept “separate from the registry maintained by the department” would create a new public or administrative category or simply continue the current practice of treating those files as sealed records separate from an immediate driving record. Matt Russo told the committee, “Right now, it's a sealed record. Yeah. So if an officer were to need to do that. They would need to have a a court order to open the sealed record. It's not on a a driving record.”

The question arose because draft 2.1 replaces an existing subsection and adds definitions cross-referencing Title 23. Legislative counsel explained the draft adds definitions for terms including highway, law enforcement officer, motor vehicle, operator, junior operator and suspension references using cross-references to Title 23. Novogrowski summarized the court administrator’s office concern as a check that the DMV was comfortable with the language; he said it sounded like the DMV was.

Committee members and DMV staff said they preferred to avoid creating a brand-new administrative category for these records because that would require additional DMV systems work. One committee member asked whether the words “separate from the registry” might be read to mean a separate driving-record registry; committee members said they intended the language to preserve sealed-record treatment rather than place information on the immediate driving history that insurers or other routine checks would access.

Legislative counsel said an updated draft (2.1) with new definitions had been circulated and that Terry Colverson and the Judicial Bureau were reviewing the language. No formal action or vote was taken; committee staff said they would wait for confirmation from the court administrator’s office and the Judicial Bureau and planned to bring the item back at the committee’s next meeting, which was tentatively placed on the calendar for next Tuesday.

Why it matters: whether information about participation in the program is treated as a sealed court record or entered on a driving record determines who can access it and whether insurers or routine checks would see the information without a court order. Committee members emphasized they did not intend to expand routine access to those records.

Officials noted a few drafting points the committee asked staff to confirm: the bill’s new definitions should cross-reference the relevant sections of Title 23 for terms such as highway and motor vehicle; the draft explicitly includes “junior operator” (people age 16 or 17) in definitions; and the committee was reminded that the legal concept of “actual physical control” or “attempt to operate” is derived from common law rather than a single statutory definition. Those drafting clarifications, staff said, would be finalized after the court administrator’s office and Judicial Bureau complete their review.