Judiciary committee reviews H.105 changes: raises minimum age, adds automatic license suspensions and civil process for youth offenses

The Judiciary Committee reviewed draft 1.1 of H.105 during a committee meeting, discussing changes that would raise the minimum age for the youth substance awareness safety program, shift certain youth alcohol violations into the Judicial Bureau as civil matters, and create automatic suspensions of an operator's license tied to program enrollment and completion.

Legislative counsel Ben Novogrowski, from the Office of Legislative Council, walked the panel through the draft. "You'll notice changes to the minimum age... it is now 12 years of age," Novogrowski said, and he described non‑substantive organizational edits and clarifications that move penalties language and update cross‑references. He also explained that the draft makes the Youth Substance Awareness Safety Program a civil violation within the Judicial Bureau's jurisdiction.

Why it matters: the bill seeks a faster, civil process for low‑level alcohol or impairment incidents involving youth and couples that with a short, automatic suspension of driving privileges intended to encourage enrollment and completion of the education program rather than prolonged criminal processing.

Key provisions and mechanics

- Minimum age: the draft changes the minimum age associated with the covered conduct from 10 years to 12 years.

- Judicial Bureau jurisdiction: the draft clarifies that a failure to complete the Youth Substance Awareness Safety Program would be a civil violation under the Judicial Bureau, rather than a criminal charge.

- Automatic suspensions: draft subdivision language would impose an automatic suspension of a person's operator's license after an impaired‑driver civil penalty, with detailed suspension lengths in subdivision B. For a first offense the draft establishes a 45‑day suspension with automatic reinstatement at the end of that period; for a second or subsequent offense the draft establishes a 90‑day suspension with automatic reinstatement after that period. The draft also provides for longer suspensions if a person fails to complete the program (committee discussion cited examples such as 180 days or up to one year for repeated failures).

- Fee cap removed: the text removes a prior $100 cap on a program fee.

Committee discussion and technical concerns

Members and witnesses broadly expressed support for the bill's goals but raised technical and policy questions about how automatic suspensions would work in practice and how the suspension mechanics should align with existing statutes.

Novogrowski flagged that the committee should consider how the suspension process would interact with existing civil suspension procedures and notification mechanics used by law enforcement and the DMV, noting that language similar to the civil suspension statute (referred to in discussion as "12 o 5") could be adapted for this bill.

Willa Farrell of the Attorney General's Office, Clerk Division of Pretrial Services, said she supported the proposed changes and the bill's intent: "I agree with the changes that are proposed here. I like that we're retaining the overall goal of the bill of having a fast and speedy intervention," and she urged that the process be "simple and really clear to youth, and that it be fast." Farrell recommended working with stakeholders on the notice and documentation mechanics.

Kim McManus, representing the State's Attorneys and Sheriff's Department, said the office supports the bill's goal and the coupling of suspension with the intervention but likewise urged that the committee ‘‘button up’’ the process and noted the DMV, prosecutors, and law enforcement may need to be consulted about the paperwork and reinstatement steps. "We support the immediacy of that suspension," McManus said, adding the office has no strong position on the exact number of days but favors logical consistency with other statutes.

Lindy Boudreaux, adolescent services director at DCF Family Services, described the bill as offering a faster intervention than criminal processing and supported escalation paired with treatment: "Offering an immediate systems response, support, and treatment to youth ... provides opportunities for better outcomes for youth." She and other witnesses emphasized that evidence about exact suspension lengths is limited and recommended data collection to inform future adjustments.

Members debated appropriate suspension lengths. Committee members said the proposal's escalation (45 days first offense, 90 days second offense, longer suspensions for failing the program) was logical, but several members urged caution given the lack of outcome data. One member said they were hesitant to exceed 90 days for an initial hard suspension without additional evidence; another member argued for at least parity with other serious driving consequences.

Process questions and next steps

Witnesses and members agreed the draft needs clearer mechanics: who issues the notice of intent to suspend, how and when the DMV is notified, whether existing civil‑suspension forms can be adapted, and how program enrollment and completion should affect reinstatement. Novogrowski and witnesses suggested adapting language from the existing civil suspension statute and that the committee invite DMV and law enforcement to advise on forms and timing.

Multiple members asked staff to return with additional information and suggested receiving testimony from law enforcement and DMV representatives at a subsequent meeting. Committee members also discussed requiring reporting back on implementation data so the legislature can reassess suspension lengths and program capacity.

Ending

No formal vote was recorded on the draft during the meeting. Committee staff said a clean, edited version of the draft will be posted and additional witnesses, including DMV and law enforcement, may be invited to address mechanical and enforcement questions at a future hearing.