As a Michigan driver's license restoration lawyer, I deal with people at all stages of losing their licenses for multiple DUI's. As a Michigan DUI lawyer, I am there from the moment someone first loses his or her license; thereafter, I switch roles, and, as a license appeal attorney, go to work on getting my client back on the road. I've published a lot of information about the Michigan license restoration process. Much of the information on my website is broken down step-by-step, while many of the articles on this blog are focused on very specific aspects of the license restoration process. This article will be more of a summary overview of how the Michigan Secretary of States' Driver Assessment and Appeal Division (DAAD) sees the license restoration process. Rather than revisit the "process" part of things, we'll look more at the reasons things are the way they are. It is critically important to understand how the people who will decide your case see things.
First, you must remember that, under Michigan law, once you've been convicted of 2 DUI's within 7years, or 3 within 10 years, you're labeled a "habitual offender." That means in the case of a 2nd DUI within 7 years, your driver's license will be revoked for a minimum of 1 year; if you've picked up your 3rd DUI within 10 years, the Michigan Secretary of State will revoke your license for a minimum of 5 years. If that's not enough, being a "habitual offender" means that the law presumes you have an alcohol problem. In order to win your license back, you'll have to prove that your alcohol problem is under control, and also that it is likely to remain under control. As I often like to do, let's draw the curtain back a bit and get a look at things from the other side - in this case, the hearing officer's.
Here we encounter what amounts to the biggest obstacle for many people trying to win a Michigan driver's license restoration or clearance appeal, that you have an alcohol problem. I've written rather extensively about this in many of my other articles, but here, I'll just get straight to the point; if you have 2 DUI convictions within 7 years (or, wore yet, 3 or more within 10 years) and you think you can win your license back by saying you don't have a drinking problem, you're in a for a rude awakening. There is no room for negotiation here, because not only does the law give rise to a presumption that you have a drinking problem, but no one with the authority to give a license back will ever, as long as the sun rises, agree that you don't. Some people bang their heads into the wall for years by filing appeal after appeal and trying to assert that, despite their multiple DUI's, their drinking isn't a problem. Eventually, when they've lost enough times, at least some of these people come around to realize that as long as they keep trying the "I don't have a drinking problem" refrain, they'll never win their license back.
Knowing how the Michigan Secretary of State's Driver Assessment and Appeal Division (DAAD) sees this is important, but there is more to the story than just understanding the DAAD's perspective, and position. If we take a step back and look a little deeper, we can see why the DAAD applies and interprets its rules as it does. While I think there are plenty of examples of how the DAAD is off the mark, I don't really have any quarrel with them on this main point about a drinking problem.
For example, even if Dan the driver really isn't much of a drinker, if he got caught driving drunk on one occasion, spent enough money in fines, costs, insurance increases and other related expenses to buy a first class home theater system, went through holy hell with the court, and, instead of not making the same mistake again, as the overwhelming majority of people manage to do, he goes out and gets another DUI, then from the state's point of view, and really, from the whole of society's point of view, he has a drinking problem. While the meaning is essentially the same, we can certainly say that he has a problem with his drinking. At a minimum, Dan is risky. While it always seems different when it's your case, or when in concerns someone you know well, who, really, would give a license back to a complete stranger with such a record? To put it another way, people like Dan are just seen as far too risky.