The Vermont Supreme Court has upheld the civil suspension of Sean E. Devoid's driver's license after he refused sobriety tests following a car accident. The court ruled on November 6, 2026, affirming the decision made by the Rutland Superior Court. This ruling impacts Devoid and others who may face similar situations involving DUI suspensions and procedural challenges.

In this case, Devoid was involved in a car accident on September 1, 2024, when his vehicle went off the road while driving on Route 7 in Pittsford. When a state trooper arrived at the scene, Devoid initially denied having consumed any alcohol, but later admitted to drinking “maybe three beers two hours ago.” The trooper noted that Devoid’s eyes were watery and that his breath smelled of alcohol. Despite this, Devoid refused to take sobriety tests or provide a preliminary breath sample. As a result, the trooper arrested him on suspicion of driving under the influence (DUI) and took him to the barracks, where he again refused to submit to an evidentiary breath test.

Following the arrest, the trooper issued a notice to suspend Devoid's driver’s license under Vermont law, which mandates automatic suspension for DUI suspects who refuse testing. A preliminary hearing for the civil suspension took place on September 30, 2024, during which Devoid was also arraigned on criminal charges of DUI-third offense and negligent operation. In September 2025, after an evidentiary hearing, the court ruled in favor of the State in the civil suspension proceeding.

Devoid appealed the civil suspension, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the preliminary hearing occurred more than twenty-one days after the alleged offense. Vermont law, specifically 23 V.S.A. § 1205(g), states that a preliminary hearing in a civil suspension must be held within twenty-one days of the offense. In a previous case, State v. Love, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that this time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional for second or subsequent offenses.

However, the Vermont Supreme Court concluded that Devoid had waived his right to challenge the civil suspension based on the timing of the preliminary hearing. The court cited the invited error doctrine, which holds that a party cannot later contest a ruling they induced. During the preliminary hearing, Devoid’s defense counsel stated, “we waive all of the applicable formalities and enter a denial to the civil suspension.” This included waiving the requirement for a timely hearing as outlined in the statute.

The court's opinion noted that Devoid's defense counsel had indicated that the “applicable formalities” included the statutory deadlines. The court emphasized that Devoid made a “conscious choice” to forgo the protections of the twenty-one-day rule, thus consenting to the later hearing. As a result, the court ruled that Devoid had waived his right to challenge the civil suspension based on the timing of the preliminary hearing.

The court ruled, “Under these circumstances, we conclude that defendant waived his right to challenge the civil suspension based on noncompliance with the twenty-one-day rule.”

The ruling was issued by Chief Justice Paul L. Reiber, Associate Justice Nancy J. Waples, and Associate Justice Christina E. Nolan. The court affirmed the decision of the lower court, solidifying the legal precedent that defendants can waive certain procedural rights during hearings.

This ruling has significant implications for individuals facing DUI-related civil suspensions in Vermont. It underscores the importance of understanding the rights and procedures involved in such cases. Defendants must be aware that by waiving certain rights, they may limit their ability to challenge subsequent rulings.

Going forward, this decision may influence how defendants approach their cases, particularly regarding the timing of hearings and the potential implications of waiving procedural protections. It serves as a reminder for defendants and their attorneys to carefully consider the consequences of any waivers made during legal proceedings.

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Devoid plans to appeal this decision further. There is no indication of any related cases pending that could affect this ruling.