{"id":4077,"date":"2021-04-26T09:55:13","date_gmt":"2021-04-26T09:55:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wordpress-195849-4032129.cloudwaysapps.com\/michigan-drivers-license-restoration-and-the-high-cost-of-bs-part-1\/"},"modified":"2024-02-19T18:47:59","modified_gmt":"2024-02-19T23:47:59","slug":"michigan-drivers-license-restoration-and-the-high-cost-of-bs-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.randalawyers.com\/blog\/michigan-drivers-license-restoration-and-the-high-cost-of-bs-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Michigan Driver’s License Restoration and the high cost of BS – Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"

In our roles as Michigan driver\u2019s license restoration lawyers, my team and I have sat through thousands<\/strong> of license appeal hearings. Although we have certainly learned many things from our extensive experience, one lesson really stands out: A person should never try to BS a hearing officer. In this 2-part article, we\u2019ll examine why, and how, a lie (or even a \u201cmischaracterization,” to put in nicely) will not only kill a pending license appeal, but can also haunt someone and negatively affect any future license appeals he or she may file later on.<\/p>\n

\"\"Speaking as a driver\u2019s license reinstatement attorney, I would much rather find myself representing a client who admitted to something that derailed his or her current appeal rather than a client who lied about it. This applies even if the person could somehow get away with being untruthful at that moment and win. Although it\u2019s just plain wrong to lie, I\u2019m not going to moralize here; instead, we\u2019ll proceed on the basis that \u201cthings come out in the wash.\u201d As it turns out, that old saying has a way of becoming reality in license appeal cases more than in any other setting I\u2019ve ever seen.<\/p>\n

One of the problems with lying in general is that a person has to keep track of his or her fibs. In a license appeal, the hearing officer listens critically and<\/em>\u00a0skeptically to everything a person says, and is on an active lookout for any inconsistencies. Moreover, anyone who files and wins the restoration of his or her Michigan driver\u2019s license will have to come back at some point down the road for a second hearing to \u201cupgrade\u201d his or her initial restricted license with an ignition interlock to a \u201cfull,\u201d unrestricted license without the interlock.<\/p>\n

To the extent that any of the things a person says in that first license appeal hearing weren\u2019t accurate, they\u2019ll have to clearly remember them in order to be consistent at the next hearing. That may not sound so hard, but there\u2019s a lot going on in a license appeal hearing, and the questions can come at you really fast.\u00a0 As the great American author Mark Twain said, “If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.”<\/p>\n

It\u2019s complicated enough to win even if a person has a good case and is telling the truth; throw a few fibs into the mix and, well, good luck, because you\u2019re going to need it.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s really important to start off by pointing out that the hearing officer\u2019s<\/a> job, as dictated by law, is to NOT accept what a person says at face value. This isn\u2019t just my \u201ctake\u201d on things, either; the main rule<\/a> (Rule 13) governing license appeal cases begins with the following language (pay particular attention to the opening sentence and the 2 words I have bolded<\/strong>):<\/p>\n

The hearing officer shall not<\/strong> order that a license be issued to the petitioner unless the petitioner proves, by clear and convincing evidence, all of the following:<\/p>\n

i.\u00a0 \u00a0That the petitioner’s alcohol or substance abuse problems, if any, are under control and likely to remain under control.<\/p>\n

ii.\u00a0 That the risk of the petitioner repeating his or her past abusive behavior is a low or minimal risk.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

iv. That the petitioner has the ability and motivation to drive safely and within the law.<\/p>\n

v.\u00a0 Other showings that are relevant to the issues identified in paragraphs (i) to (iv) of this subdivision.<\/p>\n

A person doesn\u2019t need to be a legal scholar to read this and understand that the hearing officer\u2019s obligation to be skeptical<\/a> is not some matter of subtle interpretation. As is plainly obvious, that first sentence of the rule directs the him or her to NOT grant a license appeal unless the person filing it proves his or her case by what is next defined as \u201cclear and convincing evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n

Instead of getting lost in the weeds about all this, we’ll focus our attention on that opening language, because it\u2019s there we come to understand that the Michigan Secretary of State<\/a> hearing officers essentially begin their consideration of every case with a firm \u201cno\u201d as the answer, and will only change that to \u201cyes\u201d and grant an appeal if the evidence presented is both clear and<\/em>\u00a0convincing.<\/p>\n

In practice, the hearing officers sit through license hearings and get lied to every single day. Anyone honest and\/or smart enough to go about a license appeal the right way is going to find out that, as the second paragraph of the rule above makes clear, in order to win a license appeal, he or she must, in addition to everything else, prove these 2 things, as explained below:<\/p>\n

First<\/strong><\/span>, that his or her alcohol (and\/or drug) problem is \u201cunder control,\u201d meaning that he or she has been completely abstinent from alcohol for a legally sufficient<\/em>\u00a0period of time. In our office, we generally require a person to have been alcohol (and drug) free for at least<\/em> 18 months before we\u2019ll consider filing a case.<\/p>\n

Second<\/strong><\/span>, that his or her alcohol (and\/or drug) problem is \u201clikely to remain under control.\u201d This requires a person to demonstrate that he or she has both the ability and the commitment to never drink or use any drugs – including marijuana<\/strong> – again.<\/p>\n

Put another way, a person must show the Secretary of State that he or she has given up alcohol and any other kind of recreational drug use, and is a safe bet to remain clean and sober<\/a> for life<\/em>.<\/p>\n

This is a lot easier said than done. The truth is quite sad, because the majority of people who develop a drinking problem do NOT get over it to the extent that they remain free of any and all substances.<\/p>\n

Marijuana<\/a> has become a big problem in license appeal cases, because a lot of people somehow confuse its legal status as meaning a person can use it and still win a license appeal.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s entirely wrong. Anyone who claims to have quit drinking but otherwise uses recreational marijuana will absolutely, 100% have is or her case denied.<\/strong><\/p>\n

For as varied as the statistics about recovery can be, the most optimistic of them indicates that only about 1\/3 of people actually do recover from having been alcohol dependent.<\/p>\n

Most other studies come up with results that are a far worse<\/a> than that. For example, even by its own admission, AA only works for anywhere between 3% and 10% of all people, with most experts pegging its success rate around 5%.<\/p>\n

Thus, we begin with the proposition that, however the numbers actually do sort out, the majority of people with an alcohol problem simply do NOT get better and stay completely sober for life.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s an important fact that never gets overlooked by the Secretary of State when someone whose license has been revoked for multiple DUI\u2019s files a license appeal<\/a>, but there\u2019s even more to it:<\/p>\n

Under Michigan law, any person who is convicted of 2 DUI\u2019s within 7 years, or 3 DUI\u2019s within 10 years is legally categorized as a \u201chabitual alcohol offender<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Among the consequences of being designated as a habitual alcohol offender<\/em> is the revocation of the person\u2019s driver\u2019s license because, under the law, there is a presumption that any such person also has a drinking problem.<\/p>\n

In other words, anyone who has racked up 2 DUI\u2019s within 7 years, or 3 within 10 years is presumed to have a problem with alcohol.<\/p>\n

As a practical matter, any person filing an appeal after having his or her license revoked after multiple DUI convictions will NEVER be able to win his or her case by claiming he or she doesn\u2019t have a drinking problem, or that his or her DUI record is mostly a matter of bad luck.<\/p>\n

The \u201cbad luck\u201d story won\u2019t sell here.<\/p>\n

A lot of people will try to explain how they\u2019re not any kind of \u201cbig drinker,\u201d or that they don\u2019t drink that much, or that often. That kind of explanation only makes things worse. I\u2019ll use an example to illustrate:<\/p>\n

Big Drinker Bob lost his license after his 2nd DUI. He got his 1st in 2011, and his 2nd in 2018. Bob admits that he would usually drink around 3 or 4 times per week. We\u2019ll go with 3, just to keep things easy. If we ONLY count the time frame (7 years) around his DUI\u2019s and do a little math, Bob\u2019s drinking looks like this:<\/p>\n

3 X 52 = 156
\n7 X 156 = 1092<\/p>\n

Assuming Bob drank 1092 times in those 7 years, and got popped for drunk driving 2 of them, then his DUI rate is 0.18%.<\/p>\n

Now, consider Seldom Sipping Sally, who has the same DUI record as Bob (1st in 2011 and 2nd in 2018), but indicates that she only drank about 2 times per month. Accordingly, her drinking math would look like this:<\/p>\n

2 X 12 = 24
\n7 X 24 = 168<\/p>\n

Assuming Sally drank 168 times in those 7 years, and, like Bob, was convicted for 2 DUI\u2019s during that same time, her DUI rate is: 1.19%.<\/p>\n

Therefore, while Sally may be completely correct in saying that she\u2019s not a big drinker, and doesn\u2019t drink that often, what\u2019s also clear is that her risk factor to be arrested for an OWI charge is 6.6 times HIGHER <\/strong>than Bob\u2019s.<\/p>\n

Put another way, the \u201cbut I\u2019m not a big drinker\u201d argument doesn\u2019t help – at all.<\/p>\n

In fact, all it does is reinforce the idea that, instead of worrying about doing the math or putting a label on someone\u2019s drinking, the simple fact that he or she has racked up multiple DUI\u2019s means that his or her relationship with alcohol – whatever it may or may not be – is risky as far as drinking and driving are concerned.<\/p>\n

This is why the law mandates the revocation of a person\u2019s license after 2 DUI\u2019s within 7 years, or 3 within 10 years. It\u2019s a simple matter of risk, proven risk, and unacceptable risk, and once a person racks up multiple DUI\u2019s, he or she is considered to be (and will be treated as) an unacceptable risk to remain on the road as long as he or she has any<\/strong>\u00a0relationship to alcohol.<\/p>\n

For as complicated as all of this can get, the underlying rationale is simple:<\/p>\n

People who do not drink alcohol are exactly ZERO risk to drive drunk.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Secretary of State interprets the legal requirement that in order to win a license restoration or clearance<\/a> appeal, a person must prove that he or she has quit drinking (problem \u201cunder control\u201d) and is a safe bet to never drink again (problem \u201clikely to remain under control\u201d) to mean that the only people who can win a license appeal are people who have given up drinking completely<\/a>, and for good.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In our roles as Michigan driver\u2019s license restoration lawyers, my team and I have sat through thousands of license appeal hearings. Although we have certainly learned many things from our extensive experience, one lesson really stands out: A person should never try to BS a hearing officer. In this 2-part article, we\u2019ll examine why, and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":7024,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4077","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-driver-s-license-restoration"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.randalawyers.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4077","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.randalawyers.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.randalawyers.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.randalawyers.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.randalawyers.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4077"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.randalawyers.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4077\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.randalawyers.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7024"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.randalawyers.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4077"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.randalawyers.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4077"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.randalawyers.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4077"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}