DMV non-compliance hearing – over ruled

When you have a conditional driving privilege, maintaining that privilege is important. One of our clients was facing the prospect of losing his conditional license even though he met his requirement of not having a Blood Alcohol Content above .000. Fortunately, he had a Dummit Fradin attorney.

Client had 4 DWIs, but none within the past 23 years. Further, Client testified that he had not consumed any alcohol within the last 20 years. Three years ago, he was given a conditional restoration license that required an ignition monitoring device, known as an Interlock, and a requirement that he not have a BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) greater than .000. The client had been ordered to appear at a non-compliance hearings when he retained the Dummit Fradin. At the hearing, the hearing officer basically conceded that all of the readings were mouth contaminants (as opposed to consumption of alcoholic beverages), but, incredulously, found him to have violated his conditional contract with respect to a vague policy of avoiding mouth contaminants. The DMV hearing officer then took our Client’s license. Our Firm then filed a petition in Superior Court to have that Order reviewed by a Judge. Upon filing, we obtained a Temporary Restraining Order against the DMV, prohibiting them from taking Client’s license. At oral argument, we were able to focus the main issue on whether the affidavits, sworn by the Monitech technicians servicing the Interlock, had been properly admitted and considered into evidence. The Judge found the affidavits fatally invalid, thus there was no evidence of alcohol consumption. As a result, the Court ordered the DMV to be permanently enjoined, or stopped, from taking Client’s license.

2017-06-23T13:47:26+00:00