Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Task force told DMV license hearings and criminal prosecutions run on separate tracks; members urge coordination
Loading...
Summary
A legislative task force on impaired driving heard from state troopers, prosecutors and defense attorneys about procedural gaps between the DMV’s civil license‑revocation hearings and criminal DUI prosecutions and asked officials to coordinate a recently created multi‑agency task force before final recommendations are drafted.
Members of a legislative task force on impaired driving spent most of Tuesday’s meeting examining how Delaware’s civil license‑revocation process at the Division of Motor Vehicles runs separately from criminal DUI prosecutions and whether that split undermines public safety and fairness.
Chairman Hulman opened the meeting and noted the committee had extended its report deadline by joint resolution so members would have more time to study the issue.
Delaware State Police Corporal William Scholl described the three phases of a DUI investigation—vehicle‑in‑motion, personal contact and pre‑arrest screening—and told members that administrative DMV hearings often fail when officers do not appear. “One of the probably most prevalent issues is just officers failing to appear,” Scholl said, noting missed appearances and confusing expectations by some DMV hearing officers.
Bart Lazrod, the state’s traffic‑safety prosecutor, told the panel the DMV’s civil license process is distinct from criminal prosecutions and emphasized that evidence flows differently: chemical samples collected after arrests go to the state police lab for alcohol testing and, if below 0.08, may be routed to the Division of Forensic Science for drug analysis. “The civil DMV license process separates from the court process,” Lazrod said.
Tom Donnan of the Office of Defense Services and Steven Smith of the Kent County Public Defender’s Office said many defendants lose the opportunity to request a DMV hearing because they do not know they have 15 days to do so. Donnan said: “When the person’s arrested ... they’re given the temporary license and the notice, and they have 15 days to request a hearing.” Smith added that judges can impose no‑drive bail conditions at early court appearances that may be more enforceable than administrative suspensions.
Committee members and presenters agreed a recently formed multi‑agency task force that includes DMV, law enforcement and DOJ representatives should coordinate with the legislature’s work. Scholl said Trooper Kevin Lieber has been named as a law‑enforcement liaison to DMV’s effort; members requested that liaison and task‑force participants brief the legislative panel so the groups do not work at cross‑purposes.
The committee also recorded a short procedural action at the start of the meeting: the motion to approve Oct. 16 minutes carried by roll call.
The task force will reconvene; members asked staff to include recent recidivism and treatment program data in a future session and to circulate information from an upcoming technical summit on oral‑fluid testing.
Next steps: the committee set its next meeting for April 20 and will continue presentations and data reviews before finalizing recommendations.
