Committee reviews H.105 form changes to record detected substances, considers cross-referencing Title 23 definitions

The Judiciary Committee met May 7 to review draft amendments to H.105 that would change the notice-of-violation form used under the proposed administrative mandate to record the presence of substances detected during incidents. Ben Novakrasi, legislative counsel, told the panel the draft adds language on page 7 to require the notice to “indicate the presence of any substances that constitute a violation of subsection a of the section,” while keeping the statutory rule that “a person shall not be cited for more than one violation.”

The change is meant to give providers and programs more information about the substances involved without creating multiple citations for a single incident. Novakrasi said the phrase “presence of substances” was intended to cover substances detected in a person’s body, in a vehicle, or on a person, and that committee members could make the wording more specific if they preferred.

Court staff raised concerns about definitions and cross-references. The State Court Administrator asked the committee to consider carrying over defined terms from Title 23 — notably the definitions statute referenced as section 4 — or else to add a short definition section in the H.105 language. The administrator said cross-referencing would avoid splitting operative phrases across titles and confusing practitioners or the public.

Committee members and staff also discussed practical changes needed if the form is altered. The State Court Administrator noted the existing notice-of-violation form would be modified, and the committee could draft a separate notice-of-suspension form. The administrator warned that certain data points the bill asks for in reports — such as ages and program completion counts — may not always be available unless law enforcement or the Judicial Bureau provides a date of birth or follow-up data.

Willa (DMV representative) confirmed that date-of-birth information is captured on the ticket and said the agencies can collect ages and dates of birth when persons are referred. The committee discussed adding clarifying lead-in language on reporting, such as “if available,” to avoid creating a statutory reporting mandate that cannot be fulfilled because the data were not collected at the time of issuance.

Members agreed on several next steps: drafting a narrow definition or cross-reference to Title 23 section 4 for terms used in the new chapter, consulting the Department of Motor Vehicles about record access and confidentiality, and preparing the notice-of-suspension form described in the draft. Staff told the committee they can prepare revised language and expect to revisit the bill in a subsequent meeting.

Details and limits on reporting were emphasized throughout the discussion. The State Court Administrator said the office can provide counts of referrals to the youth substance awareness or safety program when law enforcement supplies identifying information, but completion rates and some other outcomes may not be consistently available from court records alone. The committee discussed including “available” or similar qualifiers in the reporting subsection to reflect those limits.