Citizen Portal
Sign In

Debate on SAFE Act pauses after DMV Q&A on 'safe' registration notation

Legislative committee (House committee session) · March 25, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Sign Up Free
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Committee heard extensive questions about S 585, which would add a 'safe' notation to vehicle registrations to alert officers to possible disabilities; DMV said the notation would replace the caduceus symbol and would not display diagnoses, and the committee moved to simply adjourn debate pending further review.

The committee took up S 585, the SAFE Act, which would add a "safe" notation to vehicle registrations so law enforcement could see a designation before approaching a car. Sponsors said they moved the bill language into section 56-31-15 so the notation appears on the registration rather than the driver record.

Sponsor explanation: "This is so law enforcement when they do a traffic stop and they run the license plate, they will see the designation before they even get out of the car to go talk to the person." Members asked whether the notation would identify specific diagnoses and whether it would increase workload or legal liability for officers.

Hannah Warner of the DMV responded: "When they pull up a motor vehicle registration, they see the caduceus, which is a medical symbol. This will replace that caduceus, and law enforcement ... will be trained to know that safe indicates this group of criteria ... But no, you're correct. It would not have the exact diagnosis." Warner said implementation would include a one-year training period and that DMV could consider future system changes to include more specific information but not in the initial implementation window.

Committee members pressed on liability protections and operational details (how family-shared registrations would be handled and whether an officer could determine which occupant the notation applies to). DMV and sponsors said current statutory liability protections (cited as section 56-1-80 in discussion) and a housekeeping bill under consideration are intended to address liability concerns. After extended Q&A and calls for more input from law enforcement, a member moved to "simple adjourn debate," the motion was seconded, and the committee agreed to adjourn further debate to a later full-committee meeting for additional review and potential law-enforcement input.