Vermont

CASES
  • Click here to download all Vermont cases
  • Ashley v. Vermont Agency of Transp., Not Reported in A.3d (2012)
    Motorist applied for reinstatement of hisdriver's license, which had been revoked for life aftermultiple driving under the influence (DUI) convictions.Hearing officer found that motorist had satisfied the statutoryrequirements for reinstatement. Afterwards, Department ofMotor Vehicles issued a notice of revocation based oninformation that motorist had violated the condition ofreinstatement. Hearing officer upheld the reissuance ofmotorist's lifetime suspension, and motorist appealed. TheSuperior Court, Washington Unit, Civil Division, upheld hearing officer's decision, andmotorist appealed. The Supreme Court held that the condition ofreinstatement of motorist's driver's license, namely barringa return to alcohol consumption, was validly imposed byhearing officer.Affirmed.
  • State v. Burgess, 188 Vt. 235 (2010)
    In consolidated criminal and civil suspensionproceedings, the District Court, Unit No. 2, ChittendenCircuit, entered judgment in favorof the State in the suspension case and suppressed the alcoholbreath test results in the criminal driving under the influence(DUI) case. Defendant appealed and the State filed a crossappeal.The Supreme Court held that:[1] trooper had a reasonable suspicion of DUI at the time heordered defendant to exit his vehicle;[2] the trial court abused its discretion when it suppresseddefendant's alcohol breath test results in criminal case; and[3] evidence supported the trial court's civil suspension ofdefendant's driver's license.Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
  • State v. Burnett, 195 Vt. 277 (2013)
    Licensee, who was criminally charged withdriving under the influence (DUI) and civil licensesuspension, filed a motion to suppress and to dismissboth cases. The Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, CriminalDivision, deniedthe motion to suppress in the criminal case and enteredjudgment for the State in the civil suspension case. Licenseeappealed. The Supreme Court held that:[1] evidence established an adequate foundation for theadmission of alcohol breath test results;[2] police officer's failure to follow the procedures set forthin police training manual after receiving a standard-out-of-rangemessage from alcohol breath test machine implicatedthe reliability of the test, and not the admissibility of the test;and[3] licensee adequately rebutted the statutory presumptionthat 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 themotion to suppress in criminal proceeding affirmed.
  • State v. Hawkins, 193 Vt. 297 (2013)
    Defendant was convicted on his conditionalguilty plea in the Superior Court, Essex Unit, CriminalDivision,of criminal refusal of an evidentiary breath test, and hislicense was civilly suspended. Defendant appealed both hisconviction and the civil license suspension. The Supreme Court held that:[1] statutory 42-day period within which requested finalhearing for motorist's civil license suspension had to be heldwas not subject to revival after motorist waived it, and[2] police officer lacked probable cause to arrest defendantfor negligent operation of a motor vehicle.Denial of motion to dismiss civil license suspension affirmed;reversed and remanded on motion to suppress.
  • State v. Nugent, 88 A.3d 429 (2014)
    State brought proceeding to suspend motorist'sdriver's license, asserting that motorist had prohibited bloodalcohol concentration (BAC) while operating motor vehicle.The Superior Court, Essex Unit, Criminal Division, granted motorist's motion for judgment asa matter of law. State appealed. The Supreme Court held that:[1] trial court's determination of reliability of opinion ofstate's expert as to motorist's BAC at time of motorist'soperation of motor vehicle was question of fact, and[2] evidence supported trial court's finding that expert'sopinion was not sufficiently reliable.Affirmed.
  • State v. Smith, 190 Vt. 222 (2011)
    Defendant moved to dismiss charge of drivingunder the influence (DUI) and to dismiss civil suspensionproceeding. The Superior Court, Franklin Unit, CriminalDivision, dismissed information andsuspension proceeding. State appealed. The Supreme Court held that boomlift that defendant moved while intoxicated across the streetfrom a building site was a "motor vehicle" under definitionapplicable to DUI charge and to suspension proceeding.Reversed.
  • State v. Spooner, 192 Vt. 465 (2012)
    State filed civil driver's license suspensioncomplaint against motorist. The Superior Court, Orange Unit,Criminal Division, dismissed thecomplaint. State appealed. The Supreme Court held that:[1] trial court's factual finding that second breath alcohol testadministered to motorist was unreliable because it came aftertesting machine experienced a "fatal error" was not clearlyerroneous, and[2] existence of a first, valid and reliable breath alcoholtest was insufficient to support civil suspension of motorist'sdriver's license.Affirmed.
  • State v. Wainwright, 88 A.3d 423 (2013)
    State appealed by permission granted fromorders in two cases in which the Superior Court, WindhamUnit, Criminal Division, determined thatapplicable statutes barred dual use of prior driving under theinfluence (DUI) conviction as element of criminal refusalto submit to evidentiary blood-alcohol test and as penaltyenhancement for that offense. Appeals were consolidated. The Supreme Court held that sameprior DUI conviction can serve to both criminalize refusal tosubmit to breath-alcohol test and to enhance penalty for thatoffense.Reversed and remanded.
  • State v. Walsh, Not Reported in A.3d (2010)
    State sought civil suspension of driver'slicense based upon refusal of reasonable request to provide anevidentiary breath test for suspicion that he was driving underthe influence of intoxicating liquor. The District Court,Lamoille Circuit, granted suspension,and driver appealed. The Supreme Court held that arresting officer wasnot required to testify or specify in his affidavit that his beliefof defendant's intoxication was based on his training andexperience.Affirmed.
  • State v. Waters, Not Reported in A.3d (2011)
    Motorist appealed order of the District Court,Unit No. 3, Franklin Circuit, civillysuspending his driver's license based on finding that motoristhad operated his vehicle on a highway while under theinfluence of intoxicating liquor (DUI). The Supreme Court held that road on whichmotorist had driven while intoxicated was a "publichighway."Affirmed.
STATUTES

Adoption of Federal Regulations

What Constitutes a CMV

Major Disqualifying Offenses

Major Disqualifying Offenses (Alcohol)

Serious Traffic Offenses

Identification of Conviction

Masking Convictions

10-Day Posting Requirement

Other CDL Provisions