Plano DWI Lawyer Blog

When a person is arrested for DWI in Texas, they will soon face a criminal charge. Most people understand this. Many of the people that consult with me about their DWI  do not know that they will soon be dealing with a civil case that is addressed exclusivley to the issue of whether their license to drive will be suspended.  This civil case is known as Administrative License Revocation or ALR .

Many people who are aware of the process and the deadlines, nevertheless don't understand the value in exercsing their right to a hearing.  I am frequently asked if the hearings can be won.  The answer is an emphatic YES!  ALR hearing can be won, and often are won by experienced and dilligent DWI attorneys. 

Some of the reasons why it is always a good idea to request an ALR hearing are as follows.

1.  It is one method to force disclosure of the "discovery."  The discovery is a term that refers to the documentary evidence that the Department of Public Safety's attorneys plan to use to seek suspension fo your license.  By using the ALR discovery process, you can force the State to reveal details about the evidence against you.

2.  You can subpoeana the arresting officer to the ALR hearing.  By issuing a subpoena to the arresting officer you can compel his or her testimony under oath.  This may be the only opportunity that you will have to question the officer under oath about the facts of your case prior to trial.

3.   The ALR hearing is an opportunity to explore defenses and issues in your criminal DWI case.  At the ALR hearing, you will have an opportunity to, among other things, contest the legality of the stop of your car, contest the lawfulness of the process by which your breath or blood was collected.

4.  ALR hearings are often won.  With an experienced DWI attorney, flaws in the ALR case can be exposed and turned to your advantage.  If you win the ALR hearing, the Department of Public Safety will not be authorized to suspend your license.

5.  When you request an ALR hearing, your license to drive will be preserved at least until the hearing. 

What should your attorney look for in handling an ALR case?

Just by way of example,

Did the police stop your car lawfully?

Does the admissible evidence concerning the police observations establish probable cause to arrest?

In a Chapter 524 case, is there admissible proof that you operated the car?

In a blood test case, was blood collected in a sanitary place by a person authorized to draw blood.

Did the police comply with the fifteen minute observation period?

Did the police impart any erroneous advice related to the consequences of refusing or taking a breath test? 

Was the discovery promptly turned over by the Department's Attoreys?

This is a just a partial list of the sort of issues that can be effectively raised in properly handling an ALR case.  If you have been arrested for DWI, please do yourself a favor and consult and experienced DWI attorney within FIFTEEN DAYS of your arrest.  The failure to request an ALR hearing within 15 days will result in a suspension of your license.

Another set of changes to the law governing the ALR process will go into effect soon, and some of changes are not positive for Collin and Dallas County who wish to contest the suspension of their license in an Administrative License Revocation hearing.

HB 2370 amends Texas Transportation Code 524.039 and requires a showing of "good cause" before the ALR judge will authorize a subpoena for the breath test operator to appear at the ALR hearing.  In other words, the law now allows the judge to refuse you an oppoprtunity to call the very person who obtained your breath sample as a witness at your ALR hearing.

 The breath test operator is frequently an important witness for the motorist at the ALR hearing and can shed light on crucial defensive issues, such as the requirement that the person suspected of DWI be observed for fifteen minutes prior to the taking of the test.   In order to establish good cause, lawyers for DWI suspects will have to be more diligent and determined than ever to study the facts surroundin the taking of the client's breath. 

From my perspective, this is another example of the slow but sure march to eliminate process for people accused of Driving While Intoxicated.  As an attorney practicing in this field for ten years, I don't understand the harm that the legislature apparently perceives in having an open, complete, hearing on the issue.  I, for one, eagerly view each ALR hearing as an opportunity.  The legislature has decided to erect another barrier, but creative lawyering will frequently carry th day.

Frequently, potential clients ask me if there is any point in conducting an Administrative License Revocation (ALR) hearing.  My answer is always an emphatic YES!  It seems there is a misconception out there that ALR hearings cannot be won by the person accused.  This is false and I can only imagine that this myth is  perpetuated by attorneys that don't put much effort into them.

 Even if you don't win, there are numerous reasons why it's important to conduct an ALR anyway.  First,The ALR hearing will likely be the only opportunity you have to question the police officer that arrested you under oath prior to trial.  If a hearing is set I will compel the State's lawyers to turn over all the evidence they intend to use against you at the hearing.  This will include all police reports and frequently breath or blood test results. Also, unless strategy suggests otherwise, I will require the presence of the arresting officer at your hearing.  The ALR hearing is a tremendous opportunity to test the strengh of the State's case against you and to look for weaknesses in their case.  At the ALR hearing I will be looking for ways to challenge all aspects of the state's case in an effort to maintain your right to drive.       If you prevail at the ALR hearing the civil case is dismissed and you WILL RETAIN YOUR RIGHT TO DRIVE.

In an ALR hearing I conducted this week, it looked like an uphill fight.  The client's car was stopped after he was reported to be involved in a car accident.  He consented to have his blood drawn and the toxicology report indicated a high alcohol concentration.  Airtight case?  Not quite.  At the hearing I argued that the paperwork admitted into evidence by the Department of Public Safety's lawyers did not show that the person who took my client's blood was qualified to do so, and that there was no proof that the blood was drawn in a sanitary place.  Both of the above are requirements of the law.

The judge agreed with my argument and refused to allow the DPS to suspend my client's license.