Judiciary committee reviews H.105 draft to set 90‑ and 145‑day suspensions, add notice and reporting rules

Ben Novogrovsky, legislative counsel in the Office of Legislative Council, told the House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 20 that draft 1.2 of a strike‑all amendment to H.105 would set a 90‑day suspension for a first offense and a 145‑day suspension for a second offense and would add procedures for issuing notices of suspension and reinstatement.

The measure also adds language describing what must appear on the notice that a law enforcement officer gives a person at the time of the violation, including the suspension effective date, duration, consequences, and “an explanation of the process to operate a motor vehicle with an ignition interlock restricted driver’s license or certificate,” Novogrovsky said. He described as new the provision that the commissioner of motor vehicles will send a notice of reinstatement to people automatically reinstated after serving a suspension.

The change to automatic reinstatement was explained as a practical step so people would receive a formal notice rather than having to seek reinstatement themselves. “Since we're creating that notion here, the way someone could know that their license is now back is to receive that notice from the commissioner rather than going through the process of reinstatement,” Novogrovsky said.

Novogrovsky said subdivision language in the draft also allows time served on an initial automatic suspension to be credited toward a longer “enhanced” suspension if a person later fails the youth substance‑safety awareness program (YSAP) or the diversion requirement linked to the violation. He said the draft draws some notice language from an existing statutory reference cited in the bill (transcript cites the provision as “23 VSA 12 o 5”).

Lieutenant Paul Raven, executive officer of the Special Operations Unit for the Vermont State Police, testified the agency supports combining education and enforcement and called the draft’s approach consistent with that balance. “We see that a lot with adult drivers…if we can get this education on early, to teach them the significance of alcohol consumption… and then also holding them accountable with the penalties,” Raven said. He described law enforcement’s operational experience with interlock restricted licenses: they can preserve access to work and necessary travel for people who comply, but they are also sometimes circumvented by drivers using other vehicles. Raven also said his agency sees enforcement and follow‑up challenges for drug impairment, where quantitative roadside tests for drugs are not equivalent to a breath test for alcohol and often require a Drug Recognition Expert and a blood draw.

Committee members asked about several operational and policy points. Members discussed whether including interlock information on the notice effectively allows continued driving during suspension periods, whether the initial automatic suspension should count toward an enhanced suspension for failure to complete YSAP, and whether the statutory term “successful completion” should remain. Novogrovsky said the word “successful” reflects the fact that further violations during a suspension would change reinstatement timing.

The draft sets the suspension notice to take effect on the 11th day after a person receives notice and requires law enforcement to provide a copy of the notice to the commissioner. Novogrovsky also described confidentiality and disclosure provisions in the draft and a new annual reporting requirement: beginning the next November 1, the office of the attorney general, in consultation with the judiciary, the DMV and the Department of State’s Attorneys, would submit a written report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees listing, for the prior year, the number of violations, case or diversion numbers, docket outcomes and whether the duration of suspensions showed evidence of reduced recidivism or promoted rehabilitation or deterrence.

Committee members and witnesses flagged several limits and implementation questions: the cost and monthly fees for interlock devices (Novogrovsky said installation fees are roughly $145 plus monthly charges); how suspension lengths relate to recidivism (witnesses said up‑to‑date, conclusive data were not readily available); enforcement gaps when people drive other vehicles; and the greater operational burden involved in investigating drug impairment compared with alcohol (paging and transporting a DRE and obtaining blood draws can take many hours and remove officers from patrol duties).

Vermont State Police provided preliminary operational figures: Raven said VSP recorded roughly 26 cases in calendar year 2024 in which individuals failed to complete diversion and required follow‑up. Raven also said Vermont has roughly the mid‑30s range of active Drug Recognition Experts, whom officers must often call for suspected drug impairment.

No formal committee vote on H.105 occurred during the hearing. Committee staff said the DMV and other parties would be invited to testify in a later session and that the committee expected to receive the attorney general’s office input and additional data before final action.