Michigan Criminal Lawyer Blawg

As i have alluded to in an earlier article, RULE 13 classifications are the Secretary of State's way to make a petitioner clear a higher hurdle.

Apparently the Secretary of State felt it necessary to classify people differently with regards to license restoration appeals. So what we have is one category that is "normal risk" and then there are those who fall into RULE 13, and, as you have probably guessed, this category is "high risk"!! And what this means is simple - you will need to jump through more hoops.

Normally, at least 6 months of consecutive sobriety has to be established and proven by clear and convincing evidence. RULE 13 requires the petitioner to prove at least 12 months of consecutive sobriety. Regardless of RULE 13, i always require my clients to prove at least 12 months of sobriety. In my experience, anything less and the odds of winning go way down.

What triggers a RULE 13 classification? Any number of things!! For instance, if the petitioner has blown at least two times the legal limit (when giving a breath alcohol sample or submitting to a blood draw). If the petitioner has 3 or more drinking and driving or substance related convictions. If the petitioner has suffered at least 1 relapse after having tried to quit. These bits of evidence will firmly establish a RULE 13 classification. And whats worse is that this is not an exhaustive list. So obviously it does not take much to be burdened with this higher standard of proof.

So how does one address a Rule 13 classification? Again, preparation is the key! Although the hearing officer is obligated to explain in his order as to why a file is considered to be a Rule 13 case, his determination is after the hearing. And if you had not figured it out before the hearing then you are going to have some proof problems. This is why pre-hearing preparation is so vital. Sitting down with the client to go over all of his history is unavoidable. It must be done. The clients Master Driving Record must be obtained, reviewed with the client, and established to be a complete and accurate list of convictions and infractions. Then based on what is revealed through this meeting will dictate how and what we gather as evidence.

I recall a case that illustrates these points. After having reviewed a Master Driving Record with a client, we completed the substance abuse evaluation and executed the form required and then had it filed on behalf of the client (after, of course, the client reviewed it and signed it representing that it was a complete recitation of the clients driving history). Half way through the hearing my client had an epiphany and blurted out "Ya know, now that i think about i had another drinking and driving conviction about 30 years ago that wasn't on my driving record.) WE LOST RIGHT THERE!!

A word of advice.... if you ever have an "epiphany" or any other "rouge thought" in the middle of a hearing, politely request a minute to speak with me, whisper it in my ear and then i can decide what to do about it. In that case i would have told him to clam up about it because it would have created a needless problem. And it did. The hearing officers opinion (order) indicated that without the "ancient" (my word - for emphasis) conviction, the evaluator could not possibly have rendered an accurate diagnosis and prognosis. So, because the substance abuse evaluation was "incomplete", he could not grant any kind of relief! Ridiculous! But just remember, in the hearing room, the hearing officer is the boss of us.

Don't have any unexpected glitches derail your license restitution hearing, call the law offices of Martin Lievois in Flint at 810-232-3223 or in Clinton township at 586-840-8084.

License restoration hearing officers are interested in more than just a petitioners drinking history!! That's right, if their are other skeletons in the closet....they want to know about them.

Say for instance you were a teenager and got caught drinking at a lake or you were in a public park drinking, it doesn't matter if there was no vehicle involved, they want to know about it. Those types of infractions are classified as "minor in possession" (MIP'S). Hearing officers consider these "drinking related" offenses. If you were driving, and, although not drunk or impaired but had an open beer or bottle of vodka in your lap, this infraction is referred to as "open intoxicants", and they want to know about it!

You see, a hearing officers job is to ANALYZE. You may think, "hey" that's not fair! I wasn't driving. That beer i was drinking at the beach when i was sixteen had nothing to do with a vehicle, or, that "40" i had wrapped in a bag walking down the sidewalk in downtown Royal Oak didn't involve a car....whats the deal?!? Well, the Secretary of State is obligated to determine risk. That is, they must decide what kind of risk it is to let such a person be licensed to drive on the roads with other law abiding citizens.

So, all these "events" make up a persons history. With this history, the hearing officer must determine the petitioners risk of recidivism (relapse). The more "events" or, the longer the history the harder the task of receiving relief (getting your license back). THIS IS WHY PREPARATION IS SO IMPORTANT!! For the poor soul who hires a lawyer that takes your money and then "meets you at the hearing" - your finished! And that's in a bad way.

As a matter of fact, the Secretary of State has a classification for petitioners that have an extensive "history". It's called a "RULE 13"!! Unfortunately, it's not difficult for a client to obtain this dreaded moniker. But not to fear, for attorneys like me who specialize in this field, a Rule 13 classification is manageable. Although relief such as "full privileges immediately" is unlikely - the important thing is to get our foot in the door so to speak. That is, get privileges to drive! Even if it means driving with an interlock device on your vehicle - the important thing is to get back on the road legally.

Besides, the petitioners who ARE granted "full privileges" without the interlock on their vehicle for a year are very rare. Just think of all the revenue that would be lost if there little to no interlock devices ordered!! Not only that, if there were no interlocks, there would be no "interlock violations" to argue about (many of these have nothing to do with drinking and driving but rather faulty vehicle equipment; i.e. dead battery, accident, repair shop work etc...). Much of it has to do with revenue generating and job security but we don't make the rules, we just play by them.

Even though an interlock device may be a necessary step toward getting full driving privileges, what wont be necessary is wondering if you are going to ANY driving privileges at all....because i fully prepare my clients so that no stone is left unturned and there are no surprises at the hearing. My hearings go well enough that a great majority of the time the hearing officer doesn't have to "review the testimony" first to render a decision, we get the decision right there!!

Continue reading "LICENSE RESTORATION - WHAT THEY ASK ABOUT "NOT" CONTAINED IN THE DRIVING RECORD" »

Many a client will consult with me for restoration of their driving privileges with a "general" idea of what is on their driving record. NOT GOOD ENOUGH. It is crucial to know each and every infraction, and when they occurred. Most will know "how many" drinking and driving convictions they have (for example), but they can't quite remember the exact dates. This is important! The hearing officer will inquire, and, beyond that, it must be contained in the substance abuse evaluation - which gets submitted to the hearing officer before the hearing. If EVERYTHING on the that evaluation is not spot on - you lose.

If everything is not perfect with regard to the evaluation and the attorney happens to catch the error "before" the hearing gets started, then, at the very least, the attorney can request an adjournment. At that juncture, at least the hearing will only be delayed for a short time rather than denied for another year.

But who wants snafu's like that?? Nobody! So the very first thing to do when considering a license restoration hearing is to obtain a copy of the persons driving record from the Michigan Secretary of State. This can be done easily - and if the person walks into a branch office and requests one, they can walk out at that same time with one in hand and it costs nothing.

Sometimes the client actually comes to their consultation with one. That's nice!! Most don't, but that's ok too. My staff will send for a "certified" copy from Lansing and it will be received in my office a short time later. At that time i will be able to review it to assure eligibility. Even if the client has already obtained one and brings it with them i will have to be the one to review it and determine what it says. These records are confusing and difficult to read accurately, even for attorneys - especially if they do not do this type of
work.

For each and every hearing there is a list of documents which must be submitted for the hearing officers review and consideration. And while the driving record is not one of them, some of the information "in it" gets transferred onto the substance abuse evaluation which "does" get submitted. Further, the reason why submitting the driver's license history is not necessary is because they already have it!

When the client's petition gets submitted for a hearing date, the hearing officer has the opportunity to "compare" the substance abuse evaluation with the driver's license history that he already has. If things don't match up - we have a problem. In addition to driving/substance abuse convictions, the hearing officer will be interested in "other" entries such as drug convictions.And, while the hearing officer will be inquiring about other activity "not" contained in the driving history these issues will be the subject matter of an upcoming blog article.

Many license restoration clients who consult with me ask the question, "I don't go to AA meetings, so will it be possible to get my license back??" And, to many a persons surprise, the answer is "YES". License restoration and AA meetings are not required to go hand in hand. Now don't get me wrong, its possible...but that is not to say, "it's easier". But relax, the truth of the matter is is that a majority of not just my clients but everybody appealing to the Secretary of State for reinstatement of their driving privileges do not attend AA meetings regularly....or at all.

And for those of you who may have gone to a few meetings a few years ago...those do not count for much either. The hearing officers look to AA attendance by a recovering alcoholic as a lifestyle change one makes when he/she decides to stop drinking. They use it as a tool to remain abstinent. Although everyone knows attendance does not guarantee abstinence, the hearing officers believe in this twelve step program and regular attendance, proven with sign-in sheets, go a long way to build up an appeal.

The fact of the matter is that people who have embraced AA are very proud of this fact. Because lets face it, it's a commitment, not only on a daily, weekly or monthly basis regarding going to the meetings, but in a more abstract way, it's a measure of one's resolve to stay sober. Accomplishing this goal is time consuming and difficult and for those who have, they are able to convey this without embellishing or exaggeration. The hearing officers can clearly identify those who have AA in their lives and happily share their experiences, their accomplishments, their sobriety coins, etc..

The mere fact that they talk so freely of their alcohol free "lifestyle" is not lost on the hearing officer and differs substantially from those whom it seems like information needs to be "extracted" . BUT, because of the preparation procedures i have distilled over the years, my clients do not fall prey to these types of pitfalls. And, while i tell my petitioners not to be chatty Kathy's in the hearing, at the same time i do not want them sitting there giving one word answers. The fact of the matter is, my clients know what to say and when to say it because we practice all the questions and answers there will be in the hearing. Just remember, i have been in front of every hearing officer they have and know all the questions they ask and all the answers they want to hear.

Without AA meetings to reinforce a petitioners claim of sobriety it is still entirely possible to walk out of a hearing with driving privileges. Remember, the benchmark is not whether one goes to AA meetings or not but whether a petitioner is alcohol/drug free and likely to remain so. Call the law offices of Martin Lievois today to see how we do this and get you back on the road "legally".

If you possess an out-of-state license (from Alaska to Maine, it doesn't matter) and your driving privileges were revoked after being convicted of drinking or drugging while driving in the State of Michigan, you can regain driving privileges in Michigan by way of a "clearance" pursuant to an ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL.

So whether you possess a California,Florida or Oklahoma license (the particular State doesn't matter), that "out-of-state license can be "cleared" to drive in Michigan by winning an administrative appeal.

The first hardship the driver has to endure is the eligibility waiting period. In Michigan, they are as follows:

- 1 year if convicted of 2 owi's within 7 years (owi - operating while intoxicated)

- 5 years if convicted of 3 owi's within 10 years.

Michigan does not distinguish between drinking and driving or being under the influence of drugs while driving, the penalties are the same. For your further information, Michigan has over time, changed the moniker attached to drinking and driving. In the past the offense has been called OUIL, UBAL, DUI, and now, OWI (they stand for operating under the influence of liquor, unlawful blood alcohol level, driving under the influence, and, operating while intoxicated, which is the current name tag).

For ease of reading purposes i refer only to drinking and driving but just so the reader is aware - the penalties and waiting periods, are the same for drugs.

Once it is established the driver is eligible to petition, the process begins. However, be mindful of the following. Most administrative appeals are denied! The success rate for this type of petition is approximately 25-30%, so when the Michigan Secretary of State is denying almost 70 out of 100 who attempt this avenue i would almost rather go to Vegas and play roulette.But to be fair, what the statistics do not show is how many of those attempts are petitioners who are "going it alone" (without an attorney). Regardless of whether you decide to have an in person hearing or a administrative appeal i believe it is imperative that you retain an attorney to guide you through the process and be there with you or for you.

I have always advocated for my petitioners, if possible, to fly into town to conduct an "in person" hearing wherein the success rate is near 100% (for me personally). Sometimes this simply is not possible and a mail in appeal is the only option (administrative appeal).

NOT TO FEAR!!

Over time, i have continuously modified my preparation phase to the point that when my clients proofs are presented they speak for themselves and require no testimony.This is exactly what is needed for an administrative appeal, because there is no in person participation, no cable feed to participate remotely, nothing - its entirely based on whatever is mailed in. I cannot think of an instance where an attorney is more crucial for this type of matter.

For administrative appeals, everything is in the preparation! So for the client who must go this route, be prepared to be spending a fair amount of time with me during this phase. We have a number of different communication options to make this as convenient and personable as possible. No stone can go unturned and this is precisely why attempting this alone is pure folly - remember, you get one shot per year!

You will be instrumental in what is submitted to the hearing officer, of course with my review, editing and perhaps revisions where necessary. It always surprises me when a client retains my services and envisions sitting back while i do all the work. And, while i would not mind doing it, if possible, but the reality is that it is not possible. I cannot submit to drug screens for the client, i cannot conduct the substance abuse evaluation for the client and obviously i do not know who the clients friend and family members are that would be best situated to give the assistance necessary. However my guidance will provide the road map for success. I will make the preparation as painless as possible and you will understand what we are trying to accomplish with every step and every piece of evidence. Don't delay, call the Law Offices of Martin Lievois and lets get going.

Depending on whether your license has been "suspended" or "revoked" will dictate what type of relief is available to you. The distinction is often overlooked by the layperson but the difference is huge.

The very definition of the two words suggests that their is a, stepped up urgency, if you will, between "suspension" and "revocation". And in fact their is. When a license is "suspended", generally speaking, it will AUTOMATICALLY revert back to active status (not suspended) upon the happening of a specific event, (i.e., the payment of fines or costs, the passage of a defined period of time). When a person's license is "revoked" it will never automatically do anything. Revoked here, as in the normal sense of the word means taken away, stopped, gone....period!!

Not to fear! Revoked doesn't necessarily mean gone forever. But the situation will take quite a different approach to achieve the relief the client wants....driving privileges.

First, the easier one. When a person's license is suspended because of a first impaired driving conviction or impaired driving conviction due to consumption of drugs for example, their license will be "suspended" for a defined period of time. In addition to this period of time, fines and costs will be assessed against the individual. Once the fines and costs are paid and the time period has lapsed, the person will be eligible to go to the Secretary of State to have his license automatically restored upon the payment of a reinstatement fee (you didn't think the Secretary of State was going to forget to get theirs did you?!?) remember its all about the money - well mostly.

The only caveat here is what happens when an individual forgets and/or fails to pay the court ordered fines or costs. In that event, a bench warrant is issued against the person. If that happens it would be wise, at this juncture, to retain a lawyer to help resolve the issue, because with this scenario the person is vulnerable to arrest at any time. Generally speaking, the police will not actively go and search for the person (and i do say generally because sometimes they do) in order to have them appear in front of the judge, but if the police roll up behind you while driving then all bets are off as to whether or not your going to jail. Once a bench warrant is issued against you the simple option of making your payment to the court for court ordered monies is gone and an appearance before the judge is required. Jail is an option for the judge at this juncture, especially if the individual still has not paid the court ordered fines/costs and that is why an attorney is a good thing to have at this stage.Finally, if a bench warrant is issued against you, the best approach is to resolve it as soon as possible - the longer you wait the more tenuous it becomes when appearing in front of a judge to try to explain.

When a Michigan drivers license is "revoked" on the other hand,the only way to resolve the revocation is by hearing (either before a Secretary of State hearing officer or a Circuit Court Judge). Once a license is revoked, eligibility must first be established and can be done only with the passage of time. The first task for my office is to order a driving record from the Secretary of State to determine the clients eligibility date. If your eligibility is established then we can jump right into preparing for a hearing.

The first (and only, hopefully) hearing is conducted in front of a Secretary of State hearing officer, and, for those who's underlying problems originated in Genesee County, the hearing would be conducted in person, in Lansing. Now, earlier i alluded to the fact that there is "other" relief available in Circuit Court, however this is only in the event that things do not go well in the Lansing hearing. This event should be avoided if at all possible ( for the obvious fact that this approach would require more money, time and anxiety). After nearly 23 years of practicing i have learned how to adequately prepare for the "first" hearing so as to make any appeal to a higher Court unnecessary.

But i cannot stress enough the fact that you get only one hearing per year and so you had better be completely prepared. Don't guess, call the Law Offices of Martin Lievois and get back on the road the first time!!

DAAD hearings, although quasi-judicial in nature, are similar to regular court proceedings in the sense that they have "standards of proof" which must be met in order to prevail. The standard of proof that applies to DAAD hearings is "clear and convincing" evidence. The only standard of proof that is higher is "beyond a reasonable doubt". So the bar is set high, and for a good reason.

DAAD hearing officers, like anyone else that has not been born and raised under a rock, are fully aware of relapse statistics. They know that these statistics are not favorable to the alcoholic. Knowing this, drivers license appeal hearing officers must factor this into their consideration when weighing all the evidence before them. Of course, they are also aware that some people are not above lying to get the relief that they want. So it's not enough to merely suggest that you have stopped drinking or drugging. Your "sobriety story" must be comprehensive, detailed and believable.

This is where the boys are separated from the men when it comes to representation. It distinguishes who is in it just for the money from the attorney that wants to win for his client. Clearly, not being able to drive legally is more than stressful, its life changing! Personally, i derive great pleasure from seeing a client's face when the hearing officer states that he/she is granting driving privileges. The joy and relief the client expresses is apparent and palpable,and, for me at least, is priceless!

So the bottom line is TIME. Time must be spent developing the necessary proofs to be successful. Not only do the the proofs need to be developed, they need to be properly articulated. That is, they need to be orderly and understandable to the hearing officer. Being efficient so that the hearing officer doesn't have to ask a million follow up questions is good. After all, these guys have schedules too, and they are tight. They have hearings every hour and they don't have time to waste. Not wasting their time is appreciated.

Having practiced for nearly 25 years, i am fully aware that "time is money" not only to the State but for the attorney also. Spending time efficiently is the key. Its the difference between success or failure. After all, what type of client is more likely to refer others to the attorney, the client who goes into a hearing not knowing what to expect and loses, or the client that is prepped to know what to expect, knows what is going to be asked of them and knows how to answer? Word of mouth referrals are gold to an attorney because it doesn't cost the attorney advertising money to get.

For the client who has already gone through the appeal process without success will see a sharp contrast in how i prepare for a hearing compared to other attorneys. This contrast is why i have a very high success rate. This contrast is why, over nearly 25 years, i have lost only a handful of appeals (and some of the losers have been the result of the client saying something off the wall and really stupid).

Although the preparation takes some effort on the clients part, it's completely doable and, when you are sitting in the hearing room, crazy nervous, you will be thankful of your efforts prior to the hearing!! BUT, this will not happen unless we go through the procedure i have developed over time and through trial and error.

Most of you reading this have lived long enough to buy into the old saying, "you get what you pay for". Well the same goes for an attorney/client relationship. There are two reasons an attorney might undercharge for a restoration case. One reason is that, because the attorney does not practice in this field of law, he undercharges because of a lack of understanding of the time needed to adequately prepare a case for hearing. The other is that the attorney just plain does not care to adequately prepare for the hearing. Either way its bad for the client.

Along this same train of thought, while i would not advocate as a strategy, to go out and try to find the cheapest price available, i would not on the other hand, seek the highest charging lawyer either. Their is a concept called diminishing returns and it applies. After a certain price point, the benefit/cost relationship diminishes. That is, past a certain point, the higher and higher a cost goes up, the less the benefit one receives. In other words, past a certain point your no longer getting "more brains" or "expertise" but are paying for way the attorney dresses or because of the car he drives.

If the client does his due diligence, listens to what a few attorneys are saying or looks at a few websites, he can then at least have a baseline to judge what he hears from others. After you hear things you like, because it makes sense to you, its much easier to spot the guys that are going to treat you like a "file" or worse the bulls---ers. Truth be told, there is no manual out there telling an attorney what the value of his services are. Its determined by trial and error and the market. An attorney begins to win a majority of his license hearings when he figures out how to do it the right way. Again, although the statute and regulations may enlighten one as to the "requirements" they do not explain the finer details or the quality level that the "requirements" must attain.

After an attorney begins to win these types of cases he can then, and only then, begin to reflect on the time involved to prep a "winner". It is then that the attorney can set a price. But part of the process must include determining what the market will bear. An attorney may be the best restoration lawyer in the country but if he charges $10,000 for a hearing he's alienating himself from 99% of the market.

I charge $2,000 dollars for a license restoration case and i have never considered myself a rarefied air type of attorney. I believe my prices are very competitive with others that know this field of work. Moreover, i don't go for the gimmickry others do. Forget the promises and guarantees - that's all "puffing" or exaggerating.The only person in the equation that can give a guarantee is the hearing officer. In the end all the client wants is to be able to drive again legally. Who cares about a guarantee not to have to pay for another hearing if you lose the first one? Because the bottom line is, if you lose you wait another year before you take another bite at the apple. Will that job still be there? Can you support your family, or yourself for that matter, for another year without a license?

I enjoy this area of practice and im good at it, if i don't say so myself. I understand people without a license are in a bad place. I also realize that many have to borrow the money to retain my services and so they have a lot riding on my efforts, even more so when there is an out of state petitioner coming to Michigan. And it is because of these realities that i put all my effort into each and every case i prep. And beyond the needs and hopes of my clients, i like to win!!! And even more than that - i HATE TO LOSE!!!

So if you need your license privileges back call me and at least you'll rest assured that your hiring one of the best.

But they certainly will not tell you that!! After hearing horror stories from a number of clients in the past, it became apparent that many a poor soul retain attorneys who are going to figure it out on the fly or worse yet get an attorney that feels he can read the regulations and go into a hearing and "wing it".

These are the same clients who, after listening to me tell them whats involved in the process say to me, "geez, my last attorney didn't make me do any of this!!". At which point in time i reply "Yea, and look where you are.". The truth about getting your license back in Michigan after losing it because of drinking or drugging while driving is that the process is a "proactive" one. That is to say, as a client, you cannot merely "pay an attorney" and then just sit back and have him do the work. (Although in many types of cases this is more the case than not, drivers license restorations in Michigan are somewhat unique in this sense.)

Don't get me wrong, any license restoration attorney worth his salt does plenty of work, its just that he cannot do it all. There are parts that are for the client to complete himself. Although the client never proceeds without the continual guidance of the attorney, the actual task has to be done by the client. For instance, approaching potential authors of the testimonial letters, completing the ten panel drug screen, participating in the substance abuse evaluation, etc., are things only the client can do.

Now, as part of the statutory requirements to conduct a DAAD hearing, any attorney will advise the client that these things must be done however, knowing the difference between a "good" testimonial letter and a "bad" one or knowing good competent evaluators for the substance abuse evaluations or taking the time to "prep" witnesses and the client before the day of the hearing, separates the seasoned attorney from the amateur.

So, when one considers petitioning the Secretary of State for reinstatement of driving privileges, it should not be the time to be looking for the "blue light special". For those of you too young to know what i'm referring to, in other words, its no time to look for the "basement bargain" deal when hiring an attorney. Considering the effort, time, anxiety and expense involved, going through the process once is how to get the best value for the money spent.

Some of the finer details of a successful petition quite simply put, cannot be gleaned from a reading of the statute. The statute may tell you that a substance abuse evaluation must be completed but the statute does not tell you what it "must say". The statute clearly indicates testimonial letters must be submitted but it doesn't indicate "how" they should be written. Don't figure out that you hired the wrong attorney after the fact and then have to wait another year for your next hearing.

Call me so we can do it right the first time!

As stated in an earlier article, the testimonial letters are, in my estimation, the best evidence a petitioner can provide in preparation for a DAAD hearing.

Now a petitioner may ask, "But what about a live witness that would offer in-person testimony?" Well, on some occasions i will offer this type of evidence but more then not i prefer just my petitioner and their testimonial letters. The reason for this is simple but important - people are human, they sometimes make mistakes! Hearing officers will capitalize on those mistakes. Its only normal to be nervous, after all, how many times in a persons lifetime do they have to give sworn testimony in front of a person who is scrutinizing every word you speak. Then, on top of that, when you consider that the testimony may be the difference whether or not the petitioner receives driving privileges adds considerable stress to the ordeal. This is the perfect condition for mistakes. I'm not saying everybody that testifies in person is going to get up there and blow it but why take the chance if it is not necessary.

The possibility of mistakes or inconsistencies is only compounded when the petitioner has made more than one record. In other words, when the petitioner has petitioned the DAAD and lost. The hearing officer will compare each and every record made by the petitioner. So not only does the petitioner need to be aware of everything contained in each report but if a person is going to offer testimony on the petitioner's behalf then he too needs to be aware of prior records in order to offer consistent testimony. Even if the testimony offered by the friend is not inconsistent, it possibly can show, on the other hand, that the person testifying does not know the petitioner or know the petitioner's habits as well as was earlier indicated. While this may not totally discount the testimony of the friend it may dilute it.

Letters don't have this problem. They cannot be cross-examined. Moreover, letters can be perfected. That is not to say they can be manufactured. But certainly improved to clearly articulate the authors understanding of the petitioners sobriety. Sound easy? It's not - but doable with some effort. For some reason many petitioners have problems with this task, thus requiring multiple drafts of the letters. BUT THAT'S OK!! Getting them right is the important thing. And really and truly it may be that the petitioner knows exactly what information the letters must contain but has difficulty conveying the task to the writers of the letters. Again understandable. People that write these letters are naturally going to want to cast their friend in as good a light as possible and therefore are going to want to launch right into "what a good guy the petitioner is", and, while their is a place for these accolades its not at the beginning of the letter. In order to make the task as easy and quick as possible for the writers (after all, these are people the petitioner is imposing upon to help him get his license back), I give each one a copy of an outline of the points which need to be discussed. One sentence for each point is sufficient. Of course elaborating on each point is perfectly fine as long as none of the points are ignored.

Living a sober lifestyle involves much more than just "not drinking". For the person who is alcohol addicted, deciding that he is powerless over alcohol and therefore can no longer drink is a necessary revelation, however, if that is as far as the individual takes it without incorporating significant changes in their everyday lives they will not likely be successful in remaining abstinent.

First and foremost, the most difficult change an alcoholic must make is kicking his "drinking buddies" to the curb. While these "buddies" may be perfectly nice people, if they are the ones you used to hang with while drinking they gotta go. Many drinkers feel that merely making the decision not to drink is enough and that they can still do all the things they used to do but just not drink while doing it. WRONG!! The temptation is far too great. Eventually some traumatizing event or perhaps just a particularly bad day comes around and if all those people and places are still around then backsliding into the old habits is far too easy.

What else must i do you ask?? Well, in order to develop an "effective" Structured Support Program other habits must also be evaluated and perhaps dropped or at least modified. If all your activities are centered around the bar, for instance, a pool league, a dart league, euchre tournaments, etc., they should be reevaluated and most likely dropped. However, if a hobby or pastime can be naturally shifted to a non-drinking setting then perhaps it can stay.

Being honest with oneself is the key. The best approach is to immerse yourself in hobbies or pastimes that are traditionally non-drinking related things. I don't know too many mountain climbers who start a climb with a shot or two. Likewise i don't know too many people that belong to gun clubs and shoot skeet or trap that participate in shooting events which focus on or at least have drinking as an integral part of the event. Unfortunately there are no guide books that outline non-drinking types of hobbies but if your serious you can probably figure it out.

Another thing about "drinking buddies" is that the term "buddies" is not defined in the normal context. As was stated earlier, while these people may be very nice people they generally are not the "buddy" at least not as i would define the word. In my world a buddy is someone who is there for you in times of need. Someone who supports your decisions. Someone who encourages you to do the right thing. Not once in all my years of representing people with alcohol problems have i witnessed a client supported by his drinking buddies when the client is in court. Nor do drinking buddies put money in jail commissaries or visit clients in prison or jail. That's because "drinking buddies" are, by and large, acquaintances only. You only see them when the common denominator is present - BOOZE!!! For the person trying to erase alcohol from their lives, the new mantra has to be "NEW FACES AND DRY PLACES".

While it is true that there are more than two elements to a license appeal, the essence of an appeal is to determine that: 1. The petitioner has his drinking problem under control, and; 2. It is likely to remain under control. Proof of the first element is accomplished primarily through participating in a substance abuse evaluation and having that evaluation reduced to a written report.

This evaluation is accompanied by a 10 panel drug screen to show you are substance free.

Before either of these two parts of the first step are completed, the client meets with me to discuss his history. Getting the drivers historical facts straight is critical. Communicating them to the substance abuse evaluator correctly is literally the difference between approval or denial of driving privileges. Any error or omission will be grounds for denial. And, considering the amount of detail contained in these reports, what may seem like a long and laborious meeting to get everything straight is a worthwhile investment.

Many attorneys don't consider or know to make this kind of effort. As many people can guess, DAAD hearing officers are not there to make restoration of driving privileges easy for the petitioner. Quite the opposite - they look for any glitch or problem to deny restoration. So preparation in this regard is critical and cannot be ignored. I cannot tell you how many clients have told me about prior attorneys whom they paid to get their driving privileges restored and have only met twice - once to retain (pay up) and then the second meeting is at the hearing. Wrong. This is not how a petitioner ensures himself of the best odds for success.

After the petitioner establishes that his drinking is under control through the the substance abuse evaluation and ten panel drug screen, convincing the hearing officer that the petitioner's drinking is likely to remain under control is done through other evidence such as testimonial letters, verbal testimony, etc.. I believe the most effective type of evidence of the likelihood of continued abstinence are the testimonial letters.

The hearing officers need at least three or four letters - I prefer five, if possible.These letters are authored by the petitioners closest friends and relatives. And when I say "closest" I don't mean emotionally but rather in a physical sense. In other words, these are the people who are around the petitioner "on a regular basis" throughout any given week. And not just during work hours. These friends and relatives are the people the petitioner engages in sports, hobbies and other pastimes with. These are the people who make up the petitioners "structured support program".

A friend who only sees the petitioner during work hours cannot comment on what the petitioner does in all the hours that make up the rest of the long day. Arguably, these are the hours the petitioner will be most tempted to drink - rather than during work. In this context, it poses a peculiar challenge when representing a loner or a recluse. These letters are probably the single most powerful piece of evidence the petitioner can provide. They give the hearing officer a clear snapshot of the petitioner's life on a day-in and day-out basis. This is why they have to be perfect!!

Imagine the surprise or maybe shock when a person discovers that, after moving from the State of Michigan with a revoked license, privileges can be restored only by the State of Michigan.
True enough. Gone are the days of simply moving to another state and applying for a drivers license there for a "new start". Most if not all states are networked so as to detect this type of "end around", if you will. Now people cannot ignore and sweep the problem under the rug, they must deal with the mess they left behind in Michigan.

Mostly its about the money. Imagine the millions of dollars Michigan used to lose by people leaving Michigan and also leaving behind their fines, costs, perhaps probation oversight fees, costs for counseling, community service, etc. Now, when a person appears at the department of motor vehicles (DMV) in another state to get a license issued by that state their computer system shows a revocation in Michigan and they are denied driving privileges in that particular state, at least until the Michigan problems are cleared up.

The question many people ask is, "Can I take care of the problem without having to actually go to the State of Michigan?" In a word "yes", BUT consider this, a person petitioning the DAAD (Driver Assessment and Appeals Division) of the State of Michigan gets only one shot per year at restoring their driving privileges. Further, when a person opts for not coming to Michigan in person for the hearing he is choosing what is referred to as an "administrative review". And when one considers the fact that a far greater percentage of administrative reviews are unsuccessful (3 out of 4 are denied) compared to the percentage of "in person" hearings that are denied (my success rate is well over 95%), the odds clearly are not in the favor of winning administrative reviews. For this reason i personally decline these types of hearings. I find, and the statistics back me when i say, "in person" hearings are the only way to go if the client is serious about getting driving privileges restored.

For out of state petitioners who used to live in Michigan, the relief is a bit different than that of a petitioner who still lives in Michigan. Say for instance that a person has moved from Clinton Township or the beautiful City of Flint, Michigan and have relocated to California with a revocation on their Michigan license.The individual will be unable to be licensed anywhere until the Michigan problem is resolved. This is where that "administrative review" comes into play. That new California resident may be inclined to say, "But i don't want to go back to the beautiful City of Flint!!). Understandable....but perhaps necessary,at least for a couple of days.

Like i mentioned before, 3 out 4 administrative reviews are denied!

Most petitioners who are petitioning for driving privileges don't just want them back, theyneedthem back.They've tried supporting a family without being able to drive, they've bummed rides to the point their friends avoid them, they've discovered not having a drivers license severely shackles their ability to merely subsist! So choosing the administrative review route is like playing Russian roulette with three bullets in four chambers. Those odds suck!! With one shot, so to speak, per year, eventually you may win but do you have a few years to do it?!? Most people's situation are a bit more urgent than that and the odds need to be tilted in their favor. This is why i advocate for the petitioner to bite the bullet and come to Michigan for a quick hearing "in person" and then fly back home (actually the individual must make two trips into Michigan, the first is to meet with me to thoroughly review the clients history in order to prepare him for the substance abuse evaluation that he will complete the same day he meets with me on that first trip) That's a one day trip to Michigan, with the next trip (in approximately two months after the first trip) being for the actual hearing.

When the out of state client fly's in for their hearing he will not be asking for his Michigan driving privileges to be restored because he no longer lives in Michigan. The relief for the out of state petitioner is to receive a "clearance". In other words, the revocation on his Michigan license will be cleared off thus paving the way for the petitioner to go back to California to get a California license.Michigan residents on the other hand do ask for their Michigan privileges to be restored. If the proofs are strong enough full privileges can be requested. This is an exception rather than the norm, normally restricted privileges with an interlock device is the typical relief.

Holmes Youthful Trainee Act- An opportunity for a second chance.

Within the Michigan Compiled Laws there is a wonderful opportunity for young adults, seventeen years of age or older but before his/her twenty-first birthday, to participate in, and take advantage of, Holmes Youthful Trainee Act Status. This act allows an individual to plead guilty to a felony (this act is not available for felonies that carry life) without having the guilty plea entered as a conviction on their record. After a period of probation is successfully completed, the individual returns to court to have the felony dismissed. Now, even though this "period of probation" is measured in years, the result is worth it, Furthermore, obtaining something worthwhile is never easy - or at least it seems that way, so the individual will have to comply with all the conditions set forth by the Courts.

Any client considering HYTA Status needs to know that one of the possible conditions is up front jail time. Now, this is a rare condition and I personally have been in front of only one judge (now retired) who routinely ordered jail. Regardless, even if jail is ordered, taking the HYTA option is preferable when the alternative is having a felony conviction on your adult criminal record. Besides there is a good chance that if the circumstances surrounding the crime are sufficient enough to warrant up front jail with HYTA then there is good chance that jail would be ordered even if the defendant wasn't pleading under HYTA.

Arguably the most important condition is the "pre" condition of age.

Once it is established that the defendant meets the age requirements and the charged felony is within the parameters of HYTA, the most pressing issue to address from the attorneys point of view is his/her clients state of mind. The attorney must determine whether or not the client can/will conform his/her behavior to the conditions set forth by the court. If not, the judge can revoke HYTA status, the guilty plea that was entered but being held in limbo will no longer be in limbo - it will be entered as a conviction and will then be part of the clients criminal record.- AND THAT'S NOT THE WORST PART!! After the judge automatically enters the guilty plea, then the client has to appear in court to be sentenced.

If the attorney is convinced the client is not motivated to comply, then a different resolution should be explored. This is where the soul searching comes into play. Even if the client "really wants to stay out of trouble" but just doesn't have it in their makeup, maybe they have a lousy support group, or, too many bad influences surround them, this is where the client has to be honest with themselves.

Consider this, normally the typical felony, or misdemeanor case for that matter, has an approach to resolution that is repeated hundreds of times every day in court. Unless the attorney manages to get the charge dismissed, and, assuming the client has no stomach for trial, negotiations are opened between the attorney and prosecutor. Assuming further that negotiations are successful, the client would enter a plea to a reduced charge. This does not happen with HYTA pleas. The client is required to enter a plea "straight up" to the charge. In other words, their is no pleading to a reduced charge and getting to take advantage of HYTA. This is the "hammer" the Court has. If such a wonderful benefit is going to be bestowed upon the client if they succeed, an equally bad result will befall them if they fail. However, very few opportunities in the criminal justice system present themselves that allow for a felony to be completely dismissed with all records of the client being placed on HYTA status closed to public inspection. So, the ability for the client to "play the game of life" without being shackled with a FELONY CONVICTION is priceless and the sometimes formidable task of the attorney is to convince the client of this and to make sure he is "awake and smelling the coffee."

This is not an exhaustive review of at the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act. Some of the smaller details can be discussed with me during an in office consultation. Don't let the opportunity pass by without exploration, call me immediately.

Hearing officers in Michigan, of course follow the statute to determine whether the elements have been met by clear and convincing evidence. But to say that they only look at a petitioners "current proofs" to determine whether the petitioner has his problem under control (whether its drugs or alcohol) and whether or not its likely to remain under control, would be an understatement.

Consider how many people petition for driving privileges. Consider further that 100% of the people that petition want driving privileges but some lesser percentage of those people deserve them. Meaning that most petitioners do do what their proofs say they've done. They have remained abstinent, they do go to meetings, they have changed their friends and habits - in other words, they have embraced a sober lifestyle. Then there are the others. They forge sign in sheets, they lie about staying sober, they manipulate their friends to lie for them and write false testimonial letters, etc. They try to completely scam the system. So if I know this to be an unfortunate fact surely the hearing officers know it to be a fact also. So how then, do they differentiate between the honest Abe's and the scamers? They try to "read between the lines".

One of the things I've picked up over the years practicing in this area is that the honest Abe's have truly embraced the "sober lifestyle" and it resonates when he/she tells me their story. They enjoy sharing their efforts, their trials and tribulations, their struggles and their victories. They freely offer information without being asked 1000 questions or in other words without being "interrogated". The scamers are just the opposite. Getting information for them is like trying to extract a specific snowflake from a blizzard. They struggle to keep their story consistent, often times their witnesses are unconvincing.

Hearing officers have seen both types and they too try to "read between the lines" while intently listening to the petitioners proofs.They have an uncanny ability for uncovering inconsistencies. Of course, as you can imagine, avoiding inconsistencies becomes somewhat more problematic when the petitioner starts racking up multiple hearings (failed attempts). This happens when a petitioner tries to save a buck and attempts a hearing(s) on his own. After the hearing officer has conducted the hearing, he carefully pours over all letters, evaluations and verbal testimony. He compares the letters and then he compares this evidence to evidence from the past hearings to unearth, you guessed it....inconsistencies. When there are more than one hearing to deal with, coordinating all testimony from each and every past hearing with the current hearing can be very time consuming and difficult. Of course some of the scamers squeak through the system and wrongfully obtain driving privileges but I cannot and would not condone such behavior nor would I knowingly represent such a person. Anyway, by the time my "prepping" is done I have a pretty good idea as to whether a person is telling the truth or not. Moreover, my client will be aware of past testimony and how to make everything consistent. When a person has embraced the sober lifestyle, I know it, the hearing officer knows it and restoration of driving privileges is mostly a foregone conclusion.