Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dmv Temporary License Form topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Transportation hears judiciary support to update DMV suspension-notice form language
Summary
Chief Superior Judge Tom Zoney told the Senate Transportation Committee that Section 28 of a DMV-related bill removes a now-obsolete line saying a notice of suspension serves as a temporary operator's license, aligning the statute with practice after 2011 changes.
Chief Superior Judge Tom Zoney told the Senate Transportation Committee on Feb. 11 that Section 28 of a bill to revise DMV laws removes a line of form language that no longer reflects current practice.
Zoney told the committee the change deletes wording in "title 23 BSA section 12 o 5 d 2" that "says this notice shall serve as a temporary operator's license and is valid until 12/00/2001 of the date of the suspension." He said the deletion is non-substantive and updates the form language to match a 2011 statutory change that let drivers keep their physical licenses after an officer issued a notice of civil suspension. "Back in 02/2011 ... the statute under subsection c said that, what would happen is the notice of suspension would then serve as the license for the person until the case ended because the person had no physical license," Zoney said. He added that the 2011 change meant the notice provision "no longer had any validity at that point" and said the current bill is intended to "catch up to what happened 14 years ago."
A Senate Transportation Committee member asked clarifying questions and indicated support for aligning the form language with the prior statutory change. The member said the discrepancy was likely an oversight and noted the bill does not change substantive law: "it's just saying what the form has to say. And so, we do support it because it now brings the the language about what the form should say in line with the statute the legislature passed previously," the member said.
Committee discussion was brief. There was no formal vote recorded in the transcript; the committee resumed testimony on miscellaneous DMV law changes and heard the judiciary's position specifically on Section 28. Zoney also told the committee that when similar discrepancies are spotted, the judiciary will notify the legislature: "And every time we see something like this, we'll send it over and ask the legislature to take a look at it."
The testimony presented Section 28 as a technical, form-level correction to reflect the effect of the 2011 statutory change; the committee did not adopt a final action on the bill during the excerpted discussion.
