House Transportation panel considers closing CDL cellphone loophole

The Vermont House Transportation Committee on April 15 heard from Lieutenant Steve Kat of the Vermont DMV about proposed statutory language to make handheld-device rules for commercial drivers match the existing hands-free standard for passenger vehicles. Kat told the committee the change would remove a courtroom hurdle that now requires prosecutors to prove a commercial driver was actively using a device rather than merely holding it.

Kat said the state currently operates under three related statutes—two addressing passenger vehicles and one for commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs)—and that aligning the CDL wording would simplify traffic-court proceedings and downstream reporting to the federal commercial-license database known as the SID list. “The federal government maintains a program called SID list,” Kat said, describing it as a single record system for CDL holders; he explained that certain convictions trigger mandatory reporting and can lead to disqualification that prevents a driver from working for 60 or 120 days after repeat offenses within a three-year period.

Why it matters: CDT-style reporting and disqualification are consequential for drivers’ livelihoods and for public safety oversight. Committee members and the DMV emphasized that the current commercial-driver statute has posed a practical problem in court because a defendant can argue the device was merely held, not used, allowing some cases to fail to produce convictions that would otherwise be reportable to SID.

Committee members pressed the DMV on enforcement and evidentiary practices. Kat described how, in serious crashes investigators can seize devices, seek preservation letters and obtain warrants to access text records—tools that can support prosecution when a crash involves fatality or serious injury. Members also asked whether the statute would apply when a commercial vehicle is stopped in traffic (Kat said yes) and when pulled off to a rest area (Kat said no), a distinction that surfaced in debate over how broadly the prohibition should reach.

The committee also touched on future-proofing questions: members asked whether rules would need adjustment when autonomous-driving systems become more common; Kat replied that states vary and that such issues would require separate policymaking.

Next steps: Committee members agreed to solicit written comments from judicial staff and legislative counsel, and to invite stakeholder feedback from commercial drivers. The DMV’s proposed language is not yet in the pending bill; the committee noted that an individual member would have to move to amend S326 to add the changes and no vote was taken at the hearing.