Cases

State v. Nugent, 88 A.3d 429 (2014)

State brought proceeding to suspend motorist’s driver’s license, asserting that motorist had prohibited blood alcohol concentration (BAC) while operating motor vehicle. The Superior Court, Essex Unit, Criminal Division, granted motorist’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. State appealed. The Supreme Court held that:[1] trial court’s determination of reliability of opinion of state’s expert as to motorist’s BAC at time of motorist’s operation of motor vehicle was question of fact, and[2] evidence supported trial court’s finding that expert’s opinion was not sufficiently reliable. Affirmed.

State v. Burnett, 195 Vt. 277 (2013)

Licensee, who was criminally charged withdriving under the influence (DUI) and civil license suspension, filed a motion to suppress and to dismiss both cases. The Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Criminal Division, denied the motion to suppress in the criminal case and entered judgment for the State in the civil suspension case. Licensee appealed. The Supreme Court held that:[1] evidence established an adequate foundation for the admission of alcohol breath test results;[2] police officer’s failure to follow the procedures set forth in police training manual after receiving a standard-out-of-range message from alcohol breath test machine implicated the reliability of the test, and not the admissibility of the test; and[3] licensee adequately rebutted the statutory presumption that licensee’s blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) was 0.08%or more at the time of operating his vehicle. Civil suspension reversed and remanded; order denying the motion to suppress in criminal proceeding affirmed.

State v. Hawkins, 193 Vt. 297 (2013)

Defendant was convicted on his conditional guilty plea in the Superior Court, Essex Unit, Criminal Division, of criminal refusal of an evidentiary breath test, and his license was civilly suspended. Defendant appealed both his conviction and the civil license suspension. The Supreme Court held that:[1] statutory 42-day period within which requested final hearing for motorist’s civil license suspension had to be held was not subject to revival after motorist waived it, and[2] police officer lacked probable cause to arrest defendant for negligent operation of a motor vehicle. Denial of motion to dismiss civil license suspension affirmed; reversed and remanded on motion to suppress.

State v. Wainwright, 88 A.3d 423 (2013)

State appealed by permission granted from orders in two cases in which the Superior Court, Windham Unit, Criminal Division, determined that applicable statutes barred dual use of prior driving under the influence (DUI) conviction as element of criminal refusal to submit to evidentiary blood-alcohol test and as penalty enhancement for that offense. Appeals were consolidated. The Supreme Court held that same prior DUI conviction can serve to both criminalize refusal to submit to breath-alcohol test and to enhance penalty for that offense. Reversed and remanded.

Ashley v. Vermont Agency of Transp., Not Reported in A.3d (2012)

Motorist applied for reinstatement of his driver’s license, which had been revoked for life after multiple driving under the influence (DUI) convictions. Hearing officer found that motorist had satisfied the statutory requirements for reinstatement. Afterwards, Department of Motor Vehicles issued a notice of revocation based on information that motorist had violated the condition of reinstatement. Hearing officer upheld the reissuance of motorist’s lifetime suspension, and motorist appealed. The Superior Court, Washington Unit, Civil Division, upheld hearing officer’s decision, and motorist appealed. The Supreme Court held that the condition of reinstatement of motorist’s driver’s license, namely barring a return to alcohol consumption, was validly imposed by hearing officer. Affirmed.

State v. Spooner, 192 Vt. 465 (2012)

State filed civil driver’s license suspension complaint against motorist. The Superior Court, Orange Unit, Criminal Division, dismissed the complaint. State appealed. The Supreme Court held that:[1] trial court’s factual finding that second breath alcohol test administered to motorist was unreliable because it came after testing machine experienced a “fatal error” was not clearly erroneous, and[2] existence of a first, valid and reliable breath alcohol test was insufficient to support civil suspension of motorist’s driver’s license. Affirmed.

State v. Smith, 190 Vt. 222 (2011)

Defendant moved to dismiss charge of driving under the influence (DUI) and to dismiss civil suspension proceeding. The Superior Court, Franklin Unit, Criminal Division, dismissed information and suspension proceeding. State appealed. The Supreme Court held that boom lift that defendant moved while intoxicated across the street from a building site was a “motor vehicle” under definition applicable to DUI charge and to suspension proceeding. Reversed.

State v. Waters, Not Reported in A.3d (2011)

Motorist appealed order of the District Court, Unit No. 3, Franklin Circuit, civilly suspending his driver’s license based on finding that motorist had operated his vehicle on a highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DUI). The Supreme Court held that road on which motorist had driven while intoxicated was a “public highway.” Affirmed.

State v. Burgess, 188 Vt. 235 (2010)

In consolidated criminal and civil suspension proceedings, the District Court, Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit, entered judgment in favor of the State in the suspension case and suppressed the alcohol breath test results in the criminal driving under the influence(DUI) case. Defendant appealed and the State filed a cross appeal. The Supreme Court held that:[1] trooper had a reasonable suspicion of DUI at the time he ordered defendant to exit his vehicle;[2] the trial court abused its discretion when it suppressed defendant’s alcohol breath test results in criminal case; and[3] evidence supported the trial court’s civil suspension of defendant’s driver’s license. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

State v. Walsh, Not Reported in A.3d (2010)

State sought civil suspension of driver’s license based upon refusal of reasonable request to provide an evidentiary breath test for suspicion that he was driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The District Court, Lamoille Circuit, granted suspension, and driver appealed. The Supreme Court held that arresting officer was not required to testify or specify in his affidavit that his belief of defendant’s intoxication was based on his training and experience. Affirmed.

Statutes

Adoption of Federal Regulations

What Constitutes a CMV

Disqualification

Major Disqualifying Offenses (Including Alcohol)

Disqualification for Serious Traffic Offenses

Disqualification for Railroad Grade Crossings

Disqualification for Out of Service Violations

Identification of Conviction

Masking Convictions

10-Day Posting Requirement

Other CDL Provisions

Resources

News

Broadcast Library

Come To Order – Human Trafficking – Episode One

Come on the road with The National Judicial College Judicial Ambassadors as they educate judges on a wide variety of topics related to keeping America’s highways safe including CDL issues, masking, autonomous vehicles, human trafficking and more. If it happens on the highway, we talk about it here.

Episode One: An Overview of Human Trafficking for Judges – August 27, 2025

This episode is the first in a four-part series on human trafficking and what judges need to know to address this issue in their courts and communities. All episodes in the series were recorded during a judicial human trafficking leadership workshop held at The National Judicial College. This first episode focuses on the definition of human trafficking and when and where judges are likely to encounter victims and others.

Guests include:

Judge Gayle Williams-Byers, a judicial fellow at the NJC and a retired judge from Ohio. Aaron Ann Cole of Funfsinn of Hicks & Funfsinn in Lexington, Kentucky. Previously, she worked as a prosecutor in Cook County, Illinois, in the special prosecution unit in the Kentucky Attorney General’s Office, and in the special prosecution unit of the Fayette County Commonwealth Attorney’s Office. She is on the faculty at the National Judicial College.

Judge Chris Turner, a Magistrate Judge in the Third Judicial District in Shawnee County Kansas.

Come To Order – Human Trafficking – Episode Two

Come on the road with The National Judicial College Judicial Ambassadors as they educate judges on a wide variety of topics related to keeping America’s highways safe including CDL issues, masking, autonomous vehicles, human trafficking and more. If it happens on the highway, we talk about it here.

Episode Two: The Judge’s Guide to Understanding the Systems Behind Human Trafficking – August 29, 2025

This is the second episode in a series designed to help judges understand human trafficking. This episode focuses on the often complex systems behind human trafficking and help explain some of the challenges in adjudicating these cases.

Guests include:

Dr. Jeanne Allert, the founder and director of the Institute for Shelter Care, a national initiative to address gaps in service and quality for victims of exploitation. She is also the founder of The Samaritan Women. She holds a PhD in Counseling and Psychological Studies.

Lindsey Lane, the director of strategic engagement at the Human Trafficking Institute in Georgia. She formerly was a human trafficking prosecutor and assistant district attorney in North Carolina and a senior assistant district attorney in Tennessee’s Third Judicial District.

Come To Order – Human Trafficking – Episode Three

Come on the road with The National Judicial College Judicial Ambassadors as they educate judges on a wide variety of topics related to keeping America’s highways safe including CDL issues, masking, autonomous vehicles, human trafficking and more. If it happens on the highway, we talk about it here.

Episode Three: How Bias May Prevent Judges From Recognizing Human Trafficking – September 25, 2025

This episode continues our series on human trafficking and what judges need to know and what they can do to help address this issue in their communities. It explores how biases may prevent judges from recognizing human trafficking in their courtrooms.

Guests include:

Dr. Joseph A. Vitriol, an assistant professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. He holds a Ph.D. in social-personality and political psychology from the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, and a BA/MA in forensic psychology from John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

Dr. Christine McDermott, who is a research fellow at the National Judicial College. She earned her Ph.D. and master’s in interdisciplinary social psychology from the University of Nevada, Reno and her bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs.

Come To Order – Human Trafficking – Episode Four

Come on the road with The National Judicial College Judicial Ambassadors as they educate judges on a wide variety of topics related to keeping America’s highways safe including CDL issues, masking, autonomous vehicles, human trafficking and more. If it happens on the highway, we talk about it here.

Episode Four: How The Trucking Industry Is Fighting Human Trafficking & What Judges Need To Know – September 26, 2025

This is the final episode of our four-part series on human trafficking and what judges need to know and what they can do to help address this issue in their communities. This episode focuses on how the trucking industry is fighting human trafficking and how that may impact how cases end up before a judge.

Guests include:

Jake Elovirta, the Director of Enforcement Programs for the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance; Judge Chris Turner, who is a Magistrate Judge and director of Judicial Outreach in the Third Judicial District in Shawnee County Kansas; and Dylan Wecht, a Public Sector Engagement Specialist for Truckers Against Trafficking.

Untitled design (6)

Why Judge? “Unmasking” Procedural Fairness and Empathy for Self-Represented Litigants in Court

Course Description:

This webcast explores the concept of “masking” by self-represented litigants (SRLs) holding a Commercial Driver License (CDL), and its impact on procedural fairness. Masking occurs in everyday court adjudication procedures. When adjudicating SRLs, the language needs to be and appear “respectable” and avoid negative judgments within the courtroom. The presentation will examine how court discretion, implicit expectations of respectability, and the absence of active listening and empathy can impact SRLs’ judgements. Participants will learn to exercise these abilities while still upholding judicial ethical duties. Participants will gain insights into fostering courtroom practices that uphold procedural fairness while recognizing and responding to masking behaviors.

 

Course Objectives:

After this course, participants will be able to:

● Define masking in the context of CDL self-represented litigants and explain how it impacts procedural fairness and perception of credibility in court.

● Describe how respectability norms, court discretion, and language expectations can denigrate the challenges with CDL-SRLs and identify strategies to mitigate these barriers while maintaining judicial ethics.

● Demonstrate the use of active listening and empathy to recognize and appropriately respond to masking behaviors with ethos, fostering fair and respectful courtroom interactions.

road-gb9eefbb1f_1920

Impaired Driving and Alcohol/Drug Issues within Commercial Drivers’ License (CDL) and Commercial Motor Vehicle Cases

Course Description:

This national webcast provides judges with a comprehensive overview of current laws and emerging issues related to impaired driving within the context of Commercial Drivers’ License (CDL) and Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMV) cases. Topics include the federal and state legal frameworks governing alcohol and drug use among commercial drivers, with a particular focus on marijuana-related offenses and enforcement challenges.

 

Course Objectives:

After this course, participants will be able to:

● Identify current CDL/CMV alcohol and drug impaired driving elements and issues;

● Explain the concept of “masking” within CDL/CMV cases and recognize its state & federal impacts; and

● Reinforce foundational knowledge of current compliance requirements for CDL/CMV impaired driving cases.