Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog
In part 1 of this article, we began an examination of the updated wording regarding proper ignition interlock use that is part of every Michigan Secretary of State order granting a driver’s license restoration appeal. The large number of interlock violations makes clear that the state’s directions are not read all the way through, and I suggested moving them to the very front of the order, with clear and bold instructions to read them first. We left off by noting that merely saying it is “advisable” to get a PBT or EtG test after a power failure (tamper/circumvent) or a failed or missed breath test is at odds with the fact that, at a hearing, producing the result of such a test is, for all purposes, expected.
My team and I deal with the problems caused by the state’s use of this indecisive language (‘advisable”) all the time, in real hearings. One of the first things most hearing officers will ask if a person has a failed or missed rolling retest is whether or not he or she got a PBT or EtG test. If a person says “no,” then they’ll be asked, “why not?” Most often, the person will try and explain that they weren’t clear on the need to do that right away, or just had forgotten. Then they’re asked the most dreaded question of all: “didn’t you read your entire order?”
The hearing officers are lawyers and work as administrative law examiners (another way of saying, administrative law judges). Their main function is to evaluate and rule on the evidence in license appeal and violation cases. The legalities and nuances involved in these cases makes perfect sense to lawyers, like me, but when a regular person, who has been driving on the interlock for several months without any issues, suddenly encounters a problem, he or she doesn’t start thinking about the “burden of proof” required to win a hearing, or, what kind of evidence should I be getting together?
The instructions in each winning order lists the things that should be done if a person has a power loss (listed as “tamper/circumvent”), misses a test, or provides a positive breath sample. Even if it’s too late for those recommended PBT or EtG tests (see below), there may be enough time left to take other remedial action in order to challenge a violation. Whatever else, any problems are going to have to be satisfactorily explained to a hearing officer, whether at a violation hearing, or when a person files for full, unrestricted driving privileges. Much of this could be made better if the state fixed the language and placement of the interlock use directions.
In this article, I want to do a brief overview of what “clear and convincing” means in the real world, because it’s not only the very key to success, but is also dreadfully overlooked by just about everyone except the hearing officers who decide this cases, and anyone who finds him or herself reading an order denying their appeal. “Clear and convincing evidence” is the legal standard of proof required to win a license appeal, and it is specifically required by the rules that govern all such cases. You either meet this standard, or you lose.
The most important part of a license appeal, whether you’re seeking a clearance or the restoration of your Michigan driving privileges, is proving that you have quit drinking for good. Beyond proving your sobriety one key difference is that a restoration appeal requires a person to show up for an actual appeal hearing, while a clearance can be requested by just filing the documents alone and waiving the hearing. This is called an “administrative review,” and is essentially an appeal by mail. It may sound like a good idea, but in practice, it’s not.
Although a bit off-topic for this piece, it’s worth pointing out that there are things that can be done, at least sometimes, to prove you weren’t drinking, even up to 90 days after providing a positive breath sample. There is always some analysis required to determine whether any such test is worth trying, but the larger point is that if you’re violated for or have false positive test results, and even if it’s up to 12 weeks later, you’re not necessarily dead in the water in terms of being able to get some exculpatory evidence.
The inspiration for this article came from a client of mine for whom I won a driver’s license restoration case, and who just hired me for a new, 3rd offense DUI charge. Although I won’t use his name, I’m quite sure he is the kind of person who would want me to use the details of his story as a warning to help anyone who has supposedly quit drinking to NOT pick up again. My client had been alcohol-free for 10 years after his last DUI, had won back his restricted, and then full driver’s license, and, in the blink of an eye, picked up a single drink that quickly led him down the slippery slope until he got arrested for driving drunk – again.
It’s one thing when a person runs into some kind of trouble with the interlock device during that first year. As the saying goes, “$hit happens,” and that’s especially true when using a breath alcohol ignition interlock device (BAIID). Questions about whether or not a particular violation could have been avoided may be relevant during that first year, but after that, no matter what, the simple fact is that a person could have avoided any issues simply by having moved forward to get off the damn thing and regain full driving privileges.
The rule governing license appeals necessitates that a person show that he or she has been alcohol and/or drug free for a sufficient period of time (at least 1 year, although longer is always better) and that he or she has the commitment and the ability to remain clean and sober for life. That leaves no room for any drinking, nor the recreational use of marijuana – ever. We’ll skip any discussion of medical marijuana in this piece, because whether or not its use will prevent someone from winning back their license can only be determined on an individual, case-by-case basis.
There are plenty of people that stop drinking for a while, but for that to become permanent, meaning in order for someone to go from merely being abstinent to being genuinely sober, some fundamental changes have to take place from within. Getting sober requires altering a lot of things in one’s life. This is reflected in one of the most important bits of advice a person will hear in AA: “Avoid wet faces and wet places.”
The first question – have you quit drinking? – must be answered with an honest “yes” by anyone who hopes to win back his or her driver’s license. Next, I’ll need to know when. In general, a person should have at least a year sober before giving any serious consideration to starting a license appeal. In practice, I generally won’t file a license appeal until my client has been sober for a minimum of 18 months.