Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Being a Driver's License Restoration Lawyer puts me in a specialty with only a handful, at most, of other Lawyers with a similar Practice concentration. It can, at times, be a bit lonely, in that I simply never find myself exchanging war stories with anyone who does as much of what I do for a living. Recently, I have developed a friendship with another Restoration Lawyer a number of Counties away, but aside from her, there's really no one else with whom I can compare notes.

That's not to say that I don't receive my fair share of inquiries from other Lawyers who find this blog, and my website, and contact me with a question or two. However, in those situations, our experience isn't nearly as lateral as it is vertical.

But I'm not complaining. I get time enough for the normal Professional contact when I'm in the back room of some Courthouse, surrounded by Prosecutors and other Defense Lawyers as I handle a DUI, or some other Criminal case.

Yet this got me to thinking about why being a License Restoration Lawyer is so specialized, and wondering what, if anything, is so different about my membership in this ultra small group, beyond the extensive experience I have handling and winning License Appeals?

The answer, it seemed to me, is that I have a deep and detailed knowledge and understanding of the concepts of addiction, alcoholism, and the whole process of Recovery. This subject, at least for me, has been a field of study in which I have engaged for nearly 20 years.

When we look at those Attorneys who are Patent Lawyers, we find that the vast majority of them have engineering, or similar backgrounds. There probably isn't a Patent Lawyer out there, or certainly not many, who earned their College Degree in English, or Sociology. They have to know the mechanical workings of the things they are trying to Patent, and an engineering, or similar background (like chemistry for someone Patenting drugs) is more or less a basic, foundational requirement to work in that field. In a very real way, they have to understand how the Law applies to a whole other discipline.

For the same reason, Tax Lawyers have backgrounds in Taxation.

At the heart of any License Appeal lie the issues of alcoholism (and/or addiction) and Recovery. It is one thing to understand that those issues are present, and quite another to understand them in depth. In other words, just like Patent Law, being a good License Restoration Lawyer means applying the Law to a whole other discipline.

Continue reading "Why Being a Michigan Driver's License Restoration Lawyer is so Specialized" »

In part 1 of this article, we began our examination of Rule 13, the rule governing License Appeals. We began with the premise that the first 3 issues of Rule 13 actually all fold into the first issue. We then examined how the second issue in fact does just that, and how and why, after proving the first issue, number 2 can be considered already proven, or moot.

In this second part, we'll pick up by showing how the third issue, like the second, actually "folds" into the first, and how, just as with that second issue, once a person has proven the first, the third can be considered to have been proven, as well.

To put it another way, there really aren't 3 issues here, there is only 1, kind of stated in 3 different ways. This transforms this seemingly complex Rule into something rather easy to understand

Remember, what we're talking about in terms of the first issue has been boiled down to essentially mean that a person must show that they're alcohol problem "is likely to remain under control," which we then interpreted as meaning that the person is a safe bet to never drink again.

The third issue reads as follows:

(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.

We can simplify this and take it to mean the person is a low to minimal risk to drink and drive again.

We must therefore ask, how is it even possible that person's alcohol problem has been proven to be "likely to remain under control," but the person could not likewise be said to be a low to minimal risk to drink and drive again, which is really what issue number 3 (iii) is all about?

And the answer: It is not.

Accordingly, by proving that their alcohol problem is "likely to remain under control," a person will have likewise and simultaneously proven that they are a low to minimal risk to drink and drive again. Issue number 3 (iii), then folds into the first, just like issue number 2 (ii) folds into the first. In effect, is also redundant.

Continue reading "Simplifying a Michigan License Appeal and Understanding DAAD Rule 13 - Part 2" »

As part of my Driver's License Restoration Practice, I have tried, within the License Restoration section of this blog, to explain every aspect and facet of the License Appeal process. Many of those articles examine the varying degrees of complexity involved in a License Appeal, and try to boil these issues down to their more manageable, understandable elements.

Sometimes, what seems simple is not. This article, however, will take the opposite approach, and will focus in on a pair of issues that at first glance seem complex and difficult, yet in reality are rather quite simple. In other words, I hope to show how what may at first seem like some monstrously confusing and difficult passages of legal mumbo-jumbo can actually be reduced to a very simple, easy to understand concept.

To be clear, the two issues with which we are concerned are numbers 2 (ii) and 3 (iii) under Michigan Secretary of State's Driver Assessment and Appeal Division (DAAD) Rule 13, the rule that governs License Appeals. For reference, here is the relevant part of Rule 13, in all of its "legalese" glory:

(1) With respect to an appeal hearing that involves a review of a determination of the department which results in a denial or revocation under section 303(1)(d), (e), or (f) or (2)(c), (d), (e), or (f) of the act, all of the following provisions apply:

(a) The hearing officer shall not order that a license be issued to the petitioner unless the petitioner proves, by clear and convincing evidence, all of the following:

(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 to 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.

The whole point of this article is going to be to show how issues 2 (ii) and 3 (iii) "fold into" issue number 1 (i), and require no separate evidence or proof. In other words, we are going to demonstrate that, if a person satisfactorily proves issue number 1 (i), they have likewise and simultaneously proven issues number 2 (ii) and 3 (iii). No further proof is necessary beyond that made for the first issue, and issues number 2 (ii) and 3 (iii) can pretty much be safely ignored. To clarify, within Rule 13 itself, issues number 1 (i), 2 (ii), and 3 (iii) are identified as (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively. To make things easier, we'll just refer to them as issues number 1, 2, and 3 wherever possible.

Continue reading "Simplifying a Michigan License Appeal and Understanding DAAD Rule 13 - Part 1" »

In part 1 of this article, we began our examination of the Diagnosis section of the Substance Abuse Evaluation that is a required part of the Driver's License Appeal process. In this second part, we'll continue that examination by first narrowing our focus a bit and zooming in on what are often called "self-validating" or "test-taking attitude" scores, and then looking at the more general role of the Diagnosis section of the Substance Abuse Evaluation in a License Appeal.

As I noted in the part 1 and part 2 of the previous article regarding Testing Instruments, the most commonly used test for License Appeal Substance Abuse Evaluations is the SASSI-3 (or simply SASSI) Test. Unlike the MAST Test, the SASSI calls for no discretion in the scoring of the Test. However, as we noted in our discussion of the SASSI in that previous set of articles, the SASSI has a number of "self-validating" questions that ultimately result in a "Defensiveness" score. Depending on that score, the overall test results are determined to be more, or less, reliable. The higher the Defensiveness score, the less reliable the SASSI Test results. Of course, the lower that score, the more reliable any such results are determined to be.

If this was as easy as consistently dealing with low Defensiveness scores, then there would be no need for this discussion. However, a sizable chunk of people wind up with Defensiveness scores that, while not high enough to completely invalidate the Test scores, do call them into question. This leaves the test results in need of "interpretation." This means that the Evaluator has to arrive at a Diagnosis based upon not only the Test scores, but his or her experience, disposition and training as a Substance Abuse Counselor. It means, in short, that the Diagnosis is not completely determined by objective standards, but also contains an inescapable element of analytical subjectivity.

Beyond being able to analyze any such Diagnosis independently, it is even more important to know how the DAAD will "see" it. No matter how favorable any such Diagnosis might first appear, if it can, or will be doubted by the DAAD Hearing Officers, or otherwise not automatically accepted by them as inherently reliable, then the result will be a Denial of a License Appeal.

Remember, DAAD Rule 13, which governs License Appeals, mandates that the Hearing Officer "shall not" issue any driving privileges unless the person Appealing proves his or her case by "clear and convincing evidence." This means that if the Hearing Officer has any unresolved question or questions about the evidence presented in support of the Appeal, the person will lose. Therefore, a questionable diagnosis will in turn lead to the Hearing Officer declaring the Substance Abuse Evaluation to be "questionable" or "insufficient," and the whole Appeal goes down the drain.

Continue reading "Driver's License Restoration in Michigan - The Diagnosis in a Substance Abuse Evaluation - Part 2" »

In the previous 2-part article, we began a rather detailed examination of the "Testing Instruments" section of the Substance Abuse Evaluation that must be completed and filed as part of any Driver's License Appeal. In that article, we noted that, quite logically, the result of that Alcohol Evaluation Test is a "Diagnosis." This article will bring that whole "Diagnosis" section under the lens for another in-depth analysis. Part 1 and part 2 of the preceding article should be read as a pre-requisite to this one. In this article, we'll analyze the Diagnosis that results from whatever Test is given, and analyzed in the prior set of articles.

These "fine-tooth comb" type of articles are for people, like me, who are interested in details. Within the body of the Driver's License Restoration section of this blog, I have all kinds of articles that range from a summary overview of License Appeals, to a more specific analysis of the process, all the way to articles like these, which provide a nearly microscopic analysis of just one component of that process. As I noted before, I find that many of my Clients are interested in the fine points and minutia, and that's a good thing. Beyond the mere desire and willingness to learn, this helps provide me with a Client base that is considerably more well-read and intelligent than average.

Interestingly, if not ironically, the Diagnosis section of the Substance Abuse Evaluation comes before the Testing Instruments section. This is a little bit of the-cart-before-the-horse in terms of layout, but beyond being a bit illogical, it does not change the fact that the Diagnosis is the result of whatever Alcohol Assessment is administered.

The range of possible Diagnoses is not particularly broad. Essentially, after taking an Alcohol Assessment Test, a person can only get 1 of 3 rather general diagnoses:

1. "no diagnosis" (meaning no alcohol problem),
2. "alcohol abuse," or
3. "alcohol dependence."

Within these broader categories, there are a few sub categories: A person can be either an early, or late-stage alcohol abuser; alcohol dependent, or chronically (meaning late stage, or longstanding) alcohol dependent. These sub-categories are seldom used in License Appeal Substance Abuse Evaluations, however, so we'll omit any discussion of them.

In the real world, a "no diagnosis," meaning "no alcohol problem" diagnosis almost never occurs. In fact, even if such a diagnosis were reached in any particular case, the Secretary of State's Driver Assessment and Appeal Division (DAAD) would have grave doubts about it. This is because it is pretty much assumed that anyone with 2 or more DUI's has some kind of alcohol problem. This means that there are really only 2 plausible and realistic diagnoses: Alcohol Abuse, or Alcohol Dependence.

Continue reading "Driver's License Restoration in Michigan - The Diagnosis in a Substance Abuse Evaluation - Part 1" »