Restricted, Conditional, Temporary, or Work Licenses

Interviewer: Are people that lose refusal hearings allowed any sort of temporary licensure?

Michael Kramer: They would be entitled to a conditional license so long as they dispose of the underlying DWI arrest in a manner that results in some form of conviction, whether it be a DWI or a lesser charge or a DWAI. But there are two proceedings going at once. One is the DMV refusal hearing, and the other is the court case. Once the court case concludes, you can be granted a conditional license, which will apply not only to the suspension or revocation for the court case but also for the refusal revocation. However, if you don’t dispose of the underlying DWI charge by means of a plea of guilty or being found guilty after trial, you will not be eligible for a conditional license and you will have to face the one year revocation for the refusal. This then becomes a disincentive to go to trial and win because you will not be granted any driving privileges and you will have to serve the one year revocation for the refusal.

Interviewer: What have you observed about the psychological elements that are occurring when you meet with that client that has refused either a breathalyzer or a blood draw?

Michael Kramer: An individual who’s come to see me charged with a DWI is most concerned about the consequences of the DWI. They don’t have a grasp of what the refusal process involves, the fact that now they’re not just facing one proceeding in court but they’re facing a whole set of other proceedings at the DMV usually comes as a surprise.

Interviewer: Were there any particular cases that you could think of as far as refusal hearings that may have been a favorite victory, a unique case?

Michael Kramer: There are cases that I’ve had with prior administrative law judges, where they would hear evidence and make a determination as to whether there was enough evidence to establish that a person’s driving ability was impaired. There have been cases where there’s been the odor of alcohol but no other evidence of impairment, field sobriety tests where the individual did everything he was asked to do and the police officer was either incorrect in the manner he instructed or was not very adept in employing the tests. The particular administrative law judge observed this and found that there was not a legitimate refusal and dismissed the matter. DWAI drug cases are better cases to defend against because it’s much less obvious when a person is impaired by marijuana than alcohol. Although there can be the odor of marijuana in a car, it doesn’t mean there’s evidence of recent marijuana use so that when officers smell marijuana and question an individual as to whether they’ve been smoking and the individual says, “Well, the last time I smoked was yesterday,” the officer although still very suspicious must observe some other form of impairment to make a valid arrest.