Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Being a Driver's License Restoration Lawyer means that, beyond calls from those who want to hire me to handle their case the first time, I get any number of calls from people who have already tried (either on their own, or with a Lawyer other than me), and lost. Usually, the first thing they want to know is about filing an Appeal. I explain to such a caller that Appeals to Circuit Court are generally a waste of time and money. Winning an Appeal to Circuit Court after losing at the DAAD essentially involves proving that the Hearing Officer didn't follow the law. I could go on all day about what that means, but most often, it boils down to throwing good money after bad in a futile attempt to overturn the DAAD's ruling. If the caller has taken the time to read the volumes of stuff I have written about this subject, they know that, whatever else, I know this area of the Law pretty well.

The conversation usually moves on to my representing them when they're 1 year is up, and they can file again for a new Hearing. This is when I have even more bad news. I have to explain that all the mistakes were made in that first, unsuccessful Hearing, do not simply go away, but remain part of the Record of their case. In other words, whatever caused them to lose the first time must be addressed in the subsequent Hearing. And this has the potential to be a huge problem.

This isn't bragging, but I win over 90% of my License Appeals. In those rare instances where I'm not successful, it's usually no surprise to either me, or my Client. In fact, it better not be a surprise to the Client, because if the person hasn't been made aware of any weaknesses in their case, and hasn't made an informed decision to go ahead, anyway, then there has been a serious problem in the Attorney-Client communication. Crippling problems, such as having a not-good-enough Substance Abuse Evaluation, or not-good-enough Letters of Support, or the lack of a fundamental understanding of the principles of recovery, are the kinds of problems which can never be overcome at the Hearing, and, in those cases, I would never file for a Hearing until things were made right beforehand.

When someone loses, however, then calls me, I don't have the luxury of having prepared their case. Thus, if the Substance Abuse Evaluation that they, or their previous Lawyer submitted wasn't good enough for the Secretary of State, then whatever problems it had must be addressed in the next year's Hearing. This means that if a person's Prognosis for Continued Abstinence wasn't good enough in their first Hearing, it won't do to just come in next year with an improved Substance Abuse Evaluation. Now, the person is going to have to explain and show what changed in the last year to account for the improvement in their Prognosis.

Continue reading "Winning back your Michigan Driver's License - 2nd time is NOT the Charm" »

Filing for an Adminstrative Review may be the ultimate shortcut to losing a License Appeal in Michigan. As a Driver's License Restoration Attorney, my reasons for urging caution with this process might not be what you'd think. Sure, you might figure that there's no way some guy who gets paid to represent people in License Restorations would ever encourage them to try it themselves, because that's essentially taking money out of his pocket.

The truth is, I am and always have been a big believer in self-help. I have never made a living doing for others what they can effectively do for themselves. The principal reasons I am not a fan of the Administrative Review process have to do with the high number of unsuccessful Appeals, and the fact that whatever causes a person to lose is yet another obstacle that needs to be overcome in the next Appeal. In a recent Blog article, I discussed the general idea that after a loss, winning an Appeal becomes even more difficult. While not focusing so much on the Administrative Review process, I did point out in that any License Appeal, whatever is filed with the State, or is brought out at the Hearing (win or lose), becomes part of the Record of the case and follows the person through all subsequent proceedings.

This means that the reasons for a Denial in an Administrative Review don't go away when a person files his or her next Appeal. Let's look at an example: Say a person loses their Administrative Review because their Substance Abuse Evaluation wasn't adequately favorable, or was otherwise inconsistent in some regard (a problem which is far more common than you might think, especially for those Substance Abuse Evaluations done by Counselors who do not regularly do them for the Michigan Secretary of State Driver's Assessment and Appeal Division Hearings).

When a person files for their next Appeal, the first thing the DAAD is going to look at is the order denying that first Appeal, and see if whatever was cited as a reason for that denial has been properly addressed and corrected.

Thus, if within that previously-submitted Substance Abuse Evaluation a person's "Prognosis" for continued abstinence from alcohol was not good enough, the DAAD is going to want a very clear explanation at the next Appeal about why it has become better. In other words, just submitting a better Evaluation with a more favorable "Prognosis" the next time won't cut it. One or the other Evaluation is wrong, and one or the other is accurate; a person filing a second Appeal after a loss is going to have to clearly explain this apparent contradiction.

Continue reading "Michigan Driver's License Restoration - Gambling on an Administrative Review" »

This article will focus on License Revocations that occurred after January 1, 1992, but prior to October 1, 1999, when Michigan's Habitual Offender Drunk Driving Laws went into effect. This Blog article follows one about Licenses that were Revoked, prior to 1992, for multiple Drunk Driving convictions. As a Lawyer who concentrates a significant part of his Practice in License Restorations, my experience with Suspended and Revoked Licenses pretty much runs the gamut of possible circumstances and situations.

Prior to the Habitual Offender Laws of October 1, 1999, a person who was caught Driving on a Suspended or Revoked License was punished by having their License Revoked for an additional number of years similar to whatever their then-current suspension or revocation period was. In other words, if a person had been revoked for 5 years for 3 DUI's within 10 years, then a Driving While License Suspended/Revoked/Denied (DWLS/DWLR) conviction would automatically get another 5 years tacked onto that Revocation. And this kept adding up for every DWLS/DWLR case they got. The end result was that some people were Revoked for 20, 30, or even more years!

In 1999, the Habitual Offender Laws, which made pretty much everything connected with Drunk Driving even tougher, did, however, lighten up the penalties for what are known as "Mandatory Additionals." Instead of compounding Revocations until the end of time, that same person who was Revoked for 5 years (due to multiple DUI's within 10 years) and who got another DUI would simply be Revoked for 5 years from the date of his or her last conviction.

This was great news for anyone arrested after October 1, 1999, but kind of shut out in the cold anyone whose arrest occurred before then. In particular, it tended to treat more harshly (or at least it appeared to) those whose Revocations occurred from January 1, 1992, up to September 30, 1999. Those whose DUI's occurred before the 1992 laws went into effect were still eligible to file and Appeal in the Circuit Court in the County in which they lived, and to have a License Restored based simply upon their need for one. This was known as a "Hardship Appeal."

The "Hardship Appeal" was completely and totally eliminated by the 1992 laws. When the Repeat Offender Law became effective on October 1, 1999, one of the big changes was that anyone who got another DUI, even if it was their 5th, or 15th, or 20th, would still be eligible to file a License Appeal 5 years from their last one.

Continue reading "Michigan License Restoration Appeals - Revoked Until the Distant Future" »

As a License Restoration Lawyer, I help people understand the License Restoration process and answer lots of questions about it. It has been my hope that the numerous articles on the Blog in the Driver's License Restoration category can help explain the process and answer many of those questions.

One question that comes up quite frequently from people who've had their License revoked because of multiple DUI's is something like "Can't we just go to Court and get some kind of Restricted License?"

Generally speaking, the answer is "no," but there is an exception, although it applies to a small, and shrinking group of people. The reason I point it out is that in the last year alone, 2 of the License Restorations I handled fell into this category.

For anyone whose last DUI occurred in 1991, or earlier, then the possibility of going to Court and getting a License Restored does legally exist. If a person's last DUI occurred in 1992, or any time thereafter, then there is NO possibility of having a Revoked License Restored in Court.

Here's why: In 1992, new DUI laws went into effect that completely eliminated what were known as "Hardship Appeals" in License cases. A Hardship Appeal simply meant that a person whose License had been Revoked for multiple DUI's could go to Court, and demonstrate how not having a Driver's License was a hardship upon them, and ask the Court to grant some kind of License. That whole process was eliminated by the 1992 law, and from that point forward, any new License Revocation could not be undone except by a License Appeal to the Michigan Secretary of State's DAAD (Driver's Assessment and Appeal Division, which was then known as the DLAD, or Driver's License Appeal Division). Beyond where the Appeal was to be filed, the whole hardship thing went out the window. In other words, it couldn't matter less how difficult life became without a License. Hardship was no longer a basis, or even part of one, for a multiple DUI Revoked License Appeal. New rules governing License Appeals went int effect.

Continue reading "Driver's License Restoration in Michigan - Can I go to Circuit Court for a License?" »

My Practice as a Driver's License Restoration Lawyer in Michigan is resoundingly successful in terms of the percentage of cases I win. While I'm not trying to sound boastful, I win well over 90-some percent of the cases I file. Much of this has to do with screening potential Clients and making sure they meet the State criteria in order to win their Appeal. In other words, it means not taking on Clients who aren't yet "ready," in every sense of the word, to prove their case by the required "Clear and Convincing Evidence."

Over the years, I have won a lot of cases. And in every one of those cases, the Client has been awarded, at first, a Restricted License. This article will focus on how and why a person who files a License Appeal can pretty much forget about getting a Full, Unrestricted License right out of the gate.

Perhaps one of the most common questions I'm asked, as I take on a Client for a License Appeal, is something to the effect of "What's the chance of my getting a Full License?"

My answer is always the same: Essentially zero.

There's a reason for this. When a Restricted License is granted, the Secretary of State must require that the person install an ignition interlock (breath-tester) in any vehicle they will be driving. This gives the Secretary of State an opportunity to monitor a person as they get back on the road, and really amounts to a probationary half-step in the process of eventually returning a Full License. It's kind of like being kept on a "short leash."

When a Full, Unrestricted License is granted, there is no legal way to order an ignition interlock. In a very real way, the granting of a Full License requires the Secretary of State to completely "sign off" on a person as being a totally safe bet to remain abstinent from alcohol. I've never met the Hearing Officer who doesn't want at least a little ongoing proof before that happens. And a year on a Restricted License, while being monitored with a breath-test unit, is exactly how they can get that.

Accordingly, a person filing a License Appeal must be ready to accept that this is the case, because, as the saying goes, "that's just the way it is."

Continue reading "Winning a License Restoration Appeal in Michigan Means a Restricted License First" »

As a Driver's License Restoration Attorney, the most important part of what I must deal with in every case involving someone's License is their Driving Record. I need accurate and precise information about the actions taken by the Secretary of State. Sometimes, when I receive a call from a prospective Client, they are unable to give me the exact information I need to determine if they are eligible to file a License Appeal. The best way for me to make this determination is to read their Driving Record, especially the part at the very end under the heading "Administrative Action" which details exactly what Suspensions and/or Revocations have been imposed by the Secretary of State, as well as when and why they occurred.

A common question asked of either me or my staff is "Can you get a copy of my Driving Record?" This Blog article will explain exactly how a person can get a copy of their own Driving Record, and will have several links to the Secretary of State's website to help with those requests.

A significant share of my Practice includes helping people who've moved out-of-state clear up outstanding issues with their Michigan License. For these individuals, going to a Secretary of State Branch Office and making an in-person request for their Driving Record is impossible.

Other people are just too busy during regular business hours, and would prefer the convenience of being able to send away for their Record. The downside to mailed-in request is that it is not instant. In other words, the person walking into a Secretary of State Branch Office can pay $8 and walk out with their Record. Someone sending in for it must wait a bit, typically about 2 weeks.

Under no circumstances should a person use a 3rd party, or private information service which offers to sell you a copy of your Michigan Driving Record. Those records do not contain certain essential information (most don't even have and "Administrative Action" section at all!) that must be reviewed in order to determine a person's eligibility to Appeal, either to a Court, or to the Secretary of State's Driver Assessment and Appeal Division (DAAD) for Restoration of Driving Privileges. Beyond costing more than an official Record from the Secretary of State, even if they're mostly accurate, they're never complete.

Continue reading "Getting a Copy of your Michigan Driving Record to Start a License Appeal" »

As a Driver's License Restoration Lawyer, a good chunk of the inquiries I receive comes from people who cannot be licensed in another state because of some hold on or problem with their Michigan Driver's License. Whatever other state they're currently living in, they discover that no License can be issued there until they "clear up" their Michigan License. This article will focus specifically on those cases where the reason for the Michigan hold or problem is multiple DUI's.

Under Michigan Law, 2 DUI's within 7 years results in the Revocation of the Driver's License for a minimum of 1 year. 3 or more DUI's within 10 years causes the Driver's License to be Revoked for a minimum of 5 years. When we say "for a minimum of" it means that the person cannot even file an Appeal for a License Restoration until that much time has passed, but will never be Licensed until such Appeal has been filed and won. In the real world, this means that many people, particularly those who are no longer living in Michigan, wait considerably longer than the minimum Revocation period to pursue their Appeal.

If a person is not completely clear about their eligibility to file a License Appeal, the first thing they should do is obtain a copy of their Michigan Driving Record. This link will help in that effort.

Once someone has moved out of Michigan, they are no longer eligible to Restore a Michigan Driver's License, and must instead obtain a "Clearance" from the Secretary of State in order to have a License issued in another state.

For the person who now has an address in a different state, there are 2 ways to go about the Appeal:

The first (and better way) is to file the traditional, Request-for-Hearing Appeal which requires them to reappear in Michigan for a reexamination. In my Practice, all such cases are scheduled for a Hearing at the Michigan Secretary of State's Driver Assessment and Appeal Division's Livonia office.

The other method involves filing for an Administrative Review which allows the person to skip the Hearing and just submit the various and required documents and wait for a decision.

I am not a fan of the Administrative Review. In fact, I strongly discourage it.

It is my hope that in explaining this, the prospective Client will either see things my way, or at least trust my experience and judgment enough to be willing to come back to Michigan in order to properly handle (and win) their License Appeal.

What follows is an examination of why I favor in-person Hearings so strongly for those who have moved out of state and need to obtain a Michigan Clearance in order to have a Driver's License issued in another state:

Continue reading "Michigan Driver's License Problems for Those who have Moved out of State" »

This installment will deal with why a person cannot win back their Driver's License in Michigan if they are still on Probation or Parole. The first part of my job as a Driver's License Restoration Lawyer is to "screen" a potential client. I want to know if they're eligible to file an Appeal, but even if they are, that doesn't mean that they're anywhere near being qualified, or able to win it. And one of the big obstacles to winning an Appeal is being on Probation (or Parole) at the time it's filed.

Let's be clear about it: If your License has been Revoked for 2 DUI's within 7 years (Mandatory 1-year Revocation), or 3 or more within 10 years (Mandatory 5-year Revocation), and you are on Probation (or Parole), you cannot win Restoration of your Driver's License from the Michigan Secretary of State Driver Assessment and Appeal Division (DAAD), Period.

The is the case because the DAAD knows that whenever a person is on Probation or Parole, they are required to refrain from consuming any alcohol or controlled substances (without a prescription). Inevitably, the person is subject to either regular, or at least random testing. And if they test positive, the consequences (i.e., a Probation Violation, or a Parole Violation) can involve going to Jail, or back to Prison. This is a pretty strong deterrent to using while on Probation or Parole.

The DAAD calls this "living in a controlled environment."

Of course, for those who truly embrace recovery, their sobriety has nothing to do with being monitored and tested. In other words, people who really are clean and sober don't abstain from drinking out of a fear of getting caught; they remain sober because, as the saying goes, they "are sick and tired of being sick and tired."

The question then becomes, how can the DAAD separate those who are truly sober from those who are not drinking because they're being monitored and tested? And the unfortunate answer is that they cannot. Even those truly committed to recovery, and still on Probation or Parole, will have to admit that there is no definitive way to tell one group from the other. It goes without saying that this rather "sucks" for those who are part of the "truly recovering" group, but that's the way it is.

Once a person has been released from Probation, or Parole, and when they are no longer subject to testing, or to punishment for drinking or using, and they continue to remain clean and sober, then there is no longer any issue about them "living in a controlled environment." Their sobriety is unquestionably voluntary. At that point, once they become eligible to file a License Appeal, they have at least eliminated one insurmountable obstacle to regaining the privilege to drive in Michigan.

In our last installment, we reviewed the general process of preparing for a License Restoration Hearing, and touched upon the general sort of questions that every Hearing Officer will be asking. Now, we'll turn to the questions that the Client's particular Hearing Officer is likely to ask, and cover some final details of the preparations for a Hearing. In the example of my Client, from the previous installment, who "froze" at his Hearing, it turned out that the Hearing Officer who heard his Appeal will typically ask someone who claims to attend AA to recite a few of the steps, or give the number of a step and ask the person about it.

Some other Hearing Officers aren't as concerned about the rote recital of the steps by number, but instead, if questioning someone who claims to attend AA, will ask about one of the last steps they talked about at a meeting. Other Hearing Officers will ask the person Appealing which steps or steps have meant the most to them, and why. And if you are familiar with AA, then you'll understand that the Hearing Officer is looking for more depth than just hearing about "the First Step."

The larger point here is that each Hearing Officer, in his or her own way, is attempting to explore and evaluate the person's wholesale lifestyle change, or metamorphosis, and see how sound it really is. They are trying to determine if it really is likely that the alcohol problem of the person Appealing is "likely to remain under control." Some Hearing Officers seem to be more event and fact based, while others seem to explore more of the "attitude" and tone of a person's story. One of the phrases I use when I prepare a Client is that they need to be able to "ring true" when questioned by the Hearing Officer. It's kind of like when a bell is rung, if it has a defect or crack, it will not ring "true." If the bell is not defective, or damaged, however, then it will ring out clearly. The same really holds true for a person Appealing for Restoration of their License; they need to "ring true" when put to the test.

The final part of preparing my Client to testify is what I call the "$64,000 question." Explaining it in detail here would be out of place, and may not make much sense, but after having spent several hours with my just preparing for the Hearing, the Client will be ready for it. Perhaps it can be best described as an opportunity for the Client, without the restrictions of the question-and-answer format, to be able to tell their story, describe their life-change from then (drinking) to now (sober), and really show their inner commitment to remaining sober. Remember, my job is to present a Client who can "ring true" about abstinence, recovery, sobriety, and the commitment to remain sober.

Continue reading "Driver's License Restoration in Michigan - Preparing for the Hearing - Part 2" »

In this article, we'll be examining how a person should be prepared for their actual Michigan Secretary of State Driver Assessment and Appeal Division Hearing. In the previous installments of this series, we described the difference between those people who simply want to have their Driving Privileges Restored, and those who both want them Restored and have made the necessary Lifestyle Changes to win an Appeal. We then examined Rule 13, which sets out the issues that the DAAD must examine, as well as the standard by which those issues must be reviewed. We saw how a person Appealing for a License must really prove 2 or 3 things, but do so by "clear and convincing evidence." We further learned that "clear and convincing evidence" does not mean getting "the benefit of the doubt," but rather equates more to hitting a home run. In addition, we looked at the evidence that must (and some that should not) be submitted to win a Hearing, and we saw how important the preparation process was right from the very outset of an appeal, even before any of that evidence was collected.

Let's pick up at the point where the Request for Hearing and all the Documents and Evidence has been submitted. Within a few weeks, the Secretary of State will send a Notice of the Hearing Date and Time to both the person Appealing, and their Lawyer. As a Michigan Driver's License Restoration Lawyer, what follows is a description of how things are done in my office. To me, this phase is every bit as crucial as studying for an important test. In my years of successfully handling these cases, I think I've pretty much gotten this down to a science.

The scope of my Driver's License Restoration Appeal Practice covers any Michigan Driver's License matter. This means that even if someone has moved out-of-state and needs to clear up a Michigan License matter, I can help. Because my office is in the Metro-Detroit area (Mt. Clemens), I have all of my Hearings set at the DAAD Office in Livonia, Michigan. Over the years, I have gotten extremely familiar with how Hearings are conducted in that Office, and therefore can focus the preparation process on what will actually happen at the Hearing.

Beyond containing the date and time of the Hearing, the Notice will also indicate which Hearing Officer has been assigned to the Appeal. This is important. While pretty much all Hearing Officers ask a significant number of the same questions, kind of like reading from the same script, each one has any number of questions that are unique. They each have their own style, and have their own individual areas where they concentrate their questions. Knowing this beforehand can avoid a lot of potential problems during the Hearing, and certainly gives the person Appealing an advantage over someone going in "cold."

Let's face it, anyone going into that Hearing Room knows this is an all-or-nothing, win-or-lose proposition. They are understandably nervous. Mistakes due to nerves are understandable, and generally can be corrected if the Lawyer is following the testimony. When a person freezes, however, and goes into that kind of panic-induced "mind-lock" that makes them unable to recount even a few of the 12 Steps of AA, for example (assuming, of course, that they have filed the Appeal and relied upon their AA affiliation as proof in their case), then their chances of winning the Appeal (remember, by "clear and convincing evidence") goes down the drain.

Continue reading "Driver's License Restoration in Michigan - Preparing for the Hearing - Part 1" »

In Part 1 of this installment we examined what it takes to prove that a person's alcohol problem "is under control." In Part 2 of this installment, we examine the proofs that should be submitted to demonstrate that a person's alcohol problem is "likely to remain under control."

After all that, we haven't even gotten to the second issue yet! Relax, though, because we can get rid of that second issue (and a couple of others) in a few paragraphs. In this installment, we'll tackle that second, as well as the rest of the "official" issues that a person Appealing to win back their License under DAAD Rule 13, which governs these cases.

The second issue, under Rule 13, is "[t]hat the risk of the petitioner repeating his or her past abusive behavior is a low or minimal risk."

As I noted in the introductory articles, this really is a repeat of the second part of the first issue we just talked about. Any evidence, or testimony, submitted on behalf of the notion that the person's alcohol problem is "likely to remain under control" will simultaneously prove that "the risk of the petitioner repeating his or her past abusive behavior is a low or minimal risk." Indeed, there is nothing even remotely relevant to the one issue that isn't likewise relevant to the other. Can you even think of anything that might tend to prove on of those issues any more, or less, than the other?

In practice, the DAAD examines the evidence submitted on behalf of the notion that the person's alcohol problem is "likely to remain under control" as evidence "that the risk of the petitioner repeating his or her past abusive behavior is a low or minimal risk." This second issue might reasonably be translated to something like "the risk of the petitioner having a relapse is low or minimal."

Good news ahead: the third issue is another repeat. That third issue, "[t]hat the risk of the petitioner repeating the act of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by, or under the influence of, alcohol or controlled substances or a combination of alcohol and a controlled substance or repeating any other offense listed in section 303(1)(d), (e), or (f) or (2)(c), (d), (e), or (f) of the act is a low or minimal risk," is just a more complicated way of asking if the person's alcohol problem is "likely to remain under control."

Continue reading "License Restoration In Michigan - The "Official" Issues and the Evidence Required to win a License Appeal - Part 3" »

In the Part 1 of this installment, we looked at the first sub-issue examined by the DAAD, that a person Appealing for a License has their alcohol problem "under control." In this article we'll see how the proof relevant to the second sub-issue, that the person's alcohol problem "is likely to remain under control," looks to the future, whereas, as we saw, the first sub-issue looks to the past. We'll also see how most of the evidence that the person's alcohol problem is "likely to remain under control" comes directly from the person Appealing for their license, more than anywhere else.

Without a doubt, this issue is the single most important part of a person's Appeal. The vast majority of cases that are unsuccessful lose because of the failure to prove that the person's alcohol problem "is likely to remain under control" by the required standard of clear and convincing evidence.

Before we talk about what should be done, let's talk about what should not be done, and what can pretty much guarantee a lost Appeal.

If I didn't do this for a living, I too might fall victim to the mistaken notion that all a person has to do is file for an Appeal, go in, show they haven't had a drink in such-and-such a period of time, and say that they have quit for good. That, however, is miles short of the proof necessary to win an Appeal.

When we speak of the concept that a person's alcohol problem "is likely to remain under control," we are really talking about proving that the person has made such dramatic, wholesale lifestyle changes that drinking has no where to fit in. It used to be widely believed that the DAAD would not give a License back to someone who was not actively involved in AA. While that's certainly not the case now, that idea has some value to illustrating this point. When a person becomes involved in AA, that involvement means a lot more that just going to a meeting or two a week. If a person is truly into AA, they will certainly have ditched their "drinking buddies," and have made other, very dramatic changes in their lifestyle. If they used to go to the bar after work, they now no longer go to the bar anymore. It won't do to say that they still go to the bar, but only drink soft drinks. People into sobriety know that that isn't sober behavior. This is sort of what is meant by the saying that "if you hang around the barbershop long enough, you're going to get a haircut."

When people leave a drinking lifestyle for a sober one, they change where they go, where they play, how they play, and who they hang around with. They no longer keep alcohol in their house, and any supportive family members will not put their own interests above the recovering person's by keeping such a source of temptation so close at hand. If hitting the bar was part of their life before, then they fill that void with something else, even if it's just going home to watch TV.

Continue reading "License Restoration In Michigan - The "Official" Issues and the Evidence Required to win a License Appeal - Part 2" »

In Part 1 and Part 2 of the last installment of this series about License Restorations in Michigan, we looked at the legal issues involved in winning back a driver's License. In this installment, we'll take a much more detailed look at those issues, and examine what evidence should be submitted in support of License Appeal, and to an extent, what should not be submitted. We'll be looking, in particular, at the Substance Abuse Evaluation and the Letters of Support. As I've noted before, this is complicated stuff, and there are no shortcuts around it. This installment, because of it's length, will be broken into 3 articles.

In order to file for Restoration of their Driver's License, a person must submit 3 things:

1. A Request for Hearing,

2. A Substance Abuse Evaluation, and

3. Letters of Support (between 3 and 6).

These documents must be completed fully and properly before they are submitted. Once the documents have been submitted, they are essentially "locked," meaning that the information they contain cannot easily be changed. Think of a tax return; once it's filed, the IRS proceeds based upon the information it contains; a person cannot make wholesale changes to it without strong evidence supporting the changes, and a good explanation as to why the wrong information was submitted. Even if this example is a bit of an overstatement, it is fair to say that the documents submitted to the DAAD better be close to picture perfect (i.e., "good to go") at the time they are submitted.

As a Driver's License Restoration Attorney, I prepare License Restoration Cases to be filed almost every day. Unlike other parts of my practice, which are limited geographically, I can and do represent anyone, from anywhere within, and even outside of, the State of Michigan, for a License Appeal. All of my cases are scheduled for Hearing in the Secretary of State's Driver Assessment and Appeal Division Office in Livonia, Michigan. This office conducts all the Hearings for the Metropolitan Detroit Area. No matter where a person lives, I can schedule their Hearing to take place at this Hearing Office. The information I present in these articles is based upon that experience, and comes from doing this over and over again, and doing it right. As a result, I have a success rate of well over 90% in the License Restoration Cases that I handle.

As a starting point for this article, we'll look at the issues, specified by law, that the DAAD must consider when a person files for a License Restoration. Some of these issues are more important than others. Some seldom come into play, and a few are really multiple ways of saying the same thing a different way. As we'll see, all of this really boils down to a person having to prove 2 or 3 things in order to win their License back.

Continue reading "License Restoration In Michigan - The "Official" Issues and the Evidence Required to win a License Appeal - Part 1" »

In Part 1 of this article, we looked at how the DAAD views someone with 2 or more DUI and/or Substance Abuse-related convictions who has had their Driver's License revoked and is appealing to have their License Restored. We examined the first issue, "that the Petitioner's alcohol problem, if any, is under control and is likely to remain under control." We saw how that really translates into 2 issues, and how the whole notion of an alcohol problem, "if any," really is a red-herring in the sense that no one can reasonably expect to win their License by attempting to prove that they don't have some kind of alcohol problem. In Part 2 of this article, we'll review the remaining "official" issues set forth in the DAAD's Rule 13, which governs these cases, and see what is really looked at, and how, as well as what simply doesn't matter. Finally, we'll learn what is meant by the requirement that a person seeking a License Restoration prove their case by "clear and convincing evidence."

Let's move on and look at the rest of the "official" issues as outlined in the DAAD rule 13:

(I) That the petitioner's alcohol or substance abuse problems, if any, are under control and likely to remain under control.

(ii) That the risk of the petitioner repeating his or her past abusive behavior is a low or minimal risk.

(iii) That the risk of the petitioner repeating the act of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by, or under the influence of, alcohol or controlled substances or a combination of alcohol and a controlled substance or repeating any other offense listed in section 303(1)(d), (e), or (f) or (2)(c), (d), (e), or (f) of the act is a low or minimal risk.

(iv) That the petitioner has the ability and motivation to drive safely and within the law.

(v) Other showings that are relevant to the issues identified in paragraphs (i) to (iv) of this subdivision.

Looking at the second of the DAAD's official "issues," "that the risk of the petitioner repeating his or her past abusive behavior is a low or minimal risk," we can see that, in truth, it really is a repeat of the notion that the "Petitioner's alcohol problem is likely to remain under control. " Think about it for a moment; can you imagine any information which tends to prove either one of those things any more or less than the other? Of course not. The same evidence submitted to prove one proves the other, and vice-versa. In all my many hearings, I have never seen a situation where proving that the "Petitioners alcohol problem is likely to remain under control" doesn't simultaneously prove that they pose a low or minimal risk to repeat past abusive behavior. Therefore, this "issue" is really a non-issue.

Continue reading "License Restorations in Michigan - the Legal Issues and what they mean - Part 2" »

In Part 1 and Part 2 of the Introductory articles of this series, we had a very brief overview of the License Restoration Process. Now, as we continue, we'll examine the issues that the DAAD looks at when deciding a License Restoration Case. We'll see the "official" rules, as well as how those rules are really interpreted. We'll also look at what is meant by the requirement that a person seeking License Restoration proves his or her case by "clear and convincing" evidence.

In this article, we will begin reviewing the legal issues that every person seeking Restoration of their Driver's License must overcome. Most of these articles will have to be broken into multiple sections, and this one is no exception. Thus, we'll break this section into 2 separate articles, just like we did the introduction.

To understand this whole concept of "issues," a person must first understand how both the Law in general, and the DAAD in particular views someone who has had their license revoked for 2 or more DUI's or "Substance-Abuse related" convictions.

By law, a person who accumulates 2 DUI's or "Substance-Abuse related" convictions (from here on out, we'll just say "DUI"s") within 7 years, or someone who accumulates 3 or more within 10 years, is considered a "Habitual Offender." We could spend a whole article or two discussing and arguing the numerous implications of that term, especially since a 3rd DUI in a lifetime is now considered a Felony, but for purposes of this article, once a person has their license revoked under the DUI laws of Michigan, they fall squarely within the definition of a "habitual offender."

Under the rules of the DAAD, the first thing a person seeking Restoration of their License must prove is that their "alcohol problem, if any, is under control."

Right out of the gate, anyone reading this can completely disregard that "if any" language in the rule. In nearly 20 years of handling these cases, I can tell you that I have never seen, handled, or even heard of, a case where someone applied for a License Restoration and tried to prove they didn't have an alcohol (or substance-abuse) problem. When a Revoked Driver files a License Appeal, the only question there is about their alcohol problem is how serious it is (or was), not whether it even exists. To be clear, I have never even heard of anyone trying to win a License back whose argument was "I don't have a drinking (or substance abuse) problem."

Continue reading "License Restorations in Michigan - the Legal Issues and what they mean - Part 1" »