There are lots of good comments here. But remember, if you really want your comments to have an effect, you should direct them to SOAH!

From a Texas Lawyer article, the following comment by a defense attorney:

"It's turning the criminal case into a civil case where we know what's going to happen before we go to court. Who's to complain?" Burrows says of ALR. "If they don't want the subpoenas of two officers, don't suspend licenses.


And that's exactly what we've asked of DPS in Williamson County. Stop pursuing contested DL suspensions in felony DWI cases. I will be sending a copy of that letter to all the police chiefs, the sheriff and the county attorney (who handles misdemeanor cases).

The public should be furious that they are funding a worthless system of administrative judges and public lawyers to achieve NOTHING. More is done by getting a conviction and then suspending the DL. It's time to tell the public that the emperor has no clothes.

For the Texas Lawyer article, click here.

Last week I watched a DPS attorney and a local defense attorney spend a solid hour arguing about an attachment to a DIC form. The Defendant had refused a breath test. The defendant had lost the ALR hearing and appealed it to county court (constitutional). The DPS Attorney moved to transferred it to District Court.(not a good idea). The District Judge set aside the suspension. I can only assume the DPS will give notice of appeal.

In the criminal case the defendant pled guilty to the DWI. A search warrant for blood assured that.

I understand DPS's concern that a few counties do not aggressively prosecute DWI's and a very few do not even prosecute them at all. As bad as that is, does it really justify potentially damaging a criminal prosecution and the utter waist of taxpayer dollars. I do not know how many tax dollars went in to that one ALR, but I think would have been better spent on blood draw kits, training, or signs on the highway informing drivers about blood warrants.

The reason the DPS attorney moved it to District Court is b/c the statute is written: ALJ-->County Court at Law, if no County Court at Law, to District Court. District Judges outside of Austin very seldom hear Administrative Appeals. And, as with anything that only occurs once in a while, dont approach them with alacrity.

[This message was edited by GMcDonald on 05-08-09 at .]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GMcDonald:
If it takes us 1, or for the matter, 5 hours to prevail, it is worth it to ensure the suspensions ...

---

Actually, if I am reading some of these posts correctly, there is quite a bit of disagreement on that point.

Are you kidding me? Even if DPS works the process perfectly, what stops a judge from granting an occupational DL. Those are given out like candy at Halloween, regardless of eligibility.

This whole ALR process is a sham. It is the Emperor with no clothes. But, that's just my opinion from watching it in court for a few years.

You want to impress me with stopping driving? Take the car along with the license. Don't give it back until the criminal case is concluded.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JB:
Are you kidding me? Even if DPS works the process perfectly, what stops a judge from granting an occupational DL. Those are given out like candy at Halloween, regardless of eligibility.

This whole ALR process is a sham. It is the Emperor with no clothes. But, that's just my opinion from watching it in court for a few years.

You want to impress me with stopping driving? Take the car along with the license. Don't give it back until the criminal case is concluded.

---

What I was referring to by 1 to 5 hours is the appeal. In Dallas, local rules prohibit the defendant from questioning the arresting officer/subpoenaed witness for more than 15 minutes without prior leave (which is very seldom granted).

We do not have "1 to 5 hour" ALR hearings in Dallas.

What stops the county judge from issuing an ODL? Answer: The administrative remedy must be exhausted, then nothing. I sever the ODL claims from my appeals b/c DPS is not an appropriate party. Unless you are talking about an enhanced suspension, the ALR does not restrict the ODL in any fashion (except that it must be complete).

How is a suspension a suspension if the D gets an ODL???????????????????

Many of the posts have cited tax payer cost as an issue. Tex Dot receives federal money for ALR's existence. As well, the federal government provides Texas with money for the ALR impact on CDL license suspensions.

Though there is a general budget contribution from taxes for ALR, taking into consideration the reinstatement fees, the program generates several million dollars a year over and above any expenditures for the general state revenue fund.

None of the money (federal or reinstatement) goes back to the ALR program.

That's tax money. So, unless taxpayers were looking for a way to make money, it still makes no sense. The program was created to convince drivers to provide breath samples and stop driving drunk. That is not working. Any program that has a refusal rate of nearly 50% shouldn't be considered a success. The refusal rate goes up to over 60% for repeat drunk drivers. Spend that same money collecting blood samples and trying drunk drivers.

...because ODLs are supposed to be limited and restricted. DPS doesnt litigate the ODLs. I am not sure who does. But the statute contemplates that restrictions be in place.

The majority of DWI arrests occur in time frames outside of what is allowable on an ODL. You can attribute DWLI charges to that.

What difference does it make when a DWI arrest takes place? The point is that the DL suspension system is not doing anything to create a legitimate fear among drivers, such that they either don't drive drunk or provide a breath sample when caught.

I dare you to find one videotape during which the defendant, upon hearing about a potential DL suspension, stops the officer and say, "Wait a doggone minute. Are you telling me that my DL could be suspended if I refuse to provide a breath sample? Dang it. I need that thing. I can't afford to stop driving. Well, I guess I am just gonna have to blow. Man, you guys are tough!"

Do what some other states do. They enforce the DL suspensions by permitting seizure of the vehicle if the person is caught driving while the DL is suspended.

Janette A

Whether you suspend the license or not, people are still going to drive. Even if you take their license away, people will still drive. All this stuff about ALRs and ODL's and CDL's - its all BS to me.

And as far as taking the cars, I do not think that the Legislature will support such a thing.

I like the idea of blood warrants and a fast court docket so you can get these people in and out of the system much faster. And anyone who drives without a DL, toss them in the cooler for a couple of days. If a guy is on probation or pending trial, get him one of those interlock devices.

http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/051809.htm

http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=19251

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-07/bc-ils071707.php

http://www.saprp.org/

The study found a direct correlation between saving lives and immediate license suspension programs such as ALR. With such definitive evidence, is the value not worth any ancillary impact such proceedings have on criminal prosecutions? I am anxious to read the entire study.

[This message was edited by GMcDonald on 08-19-08 at .]

Drunk driving is the most frequently committed violent crime in our country. And, in Texas, this crime is committed more frequently than in any other state. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 1,569 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes in Texas in 2006, and more than 63,500 people were injured. The percentage of crashes which are alcohol-related in Texas (45%) is far above the national average (39%).

Texas doesn't have a true DL suspension. The officer takes one license and hands the D another. The State threatens a suspension and the D delays it with a request for a hearing. The State holds a hearing and the D appeals. The D loses an appeal and gets an occupational DL. Meanwhile, the D's lawyer has been able to depose the officer, remove him from the street with a subpoena and prepare for a DWI trial he is likely to win because his client followed his advice and refused to provide a breath sample. That is a farce.

I am sure the debate of the value of ALR's will continue, but maybe the immediate answer lies in the rational exercise of discretion by ALR attorneys. On one extreme is the first time DWI offender in a County that is not likely to prosecute the case as a DWI - by all means, go after that administrative suspension and hope that that is enough to change the driver's behavior. On the other extreme is the felony DWI with a parole hold from their last felony DWI - why would any rational attorney take the time, effort, taxpayer's dollars, and the risk of damaging a criminal prosecution, to suspend the license of an offender who will be in custody the entire time of the suspension. For that matter any repeat offender DWI, if the magistrate setting bond follows the law, will have an ignition interlock device as a condition of bond before they will have a hearing on the ALR, so what is the point of proceeding with an ALR hearing.
This seems to be what JB has asked for in Williamson County and appears to be a reasonable exercise of discretion, if DPS takes the advice.

DPS turned down my request in writing, claiming that they have no discretion and must enforce the laws. That is contrary to what I was told verbally.

This is what happens when we create a state beaurocracy and leave no room for people to do what makes sense.

If ALR won't play friendly with others, then perhaps we should boycott the hearings.

This has actually been a topic of discussion within the law enforcement community. Cops recognize the fallacy that exists with ALR. They also recognize that the defense bar is using ALR as a ploy to undermine the DWI case.

Without subpoena power how can ALR or defense attorneys compel cops to attend the hearings? I don't think they can.

Personally, I think that is the reason for the proposed rules to allow defense attorneys to have subpoena power.

[This message was edited by John B. Lyons on 08-21-08 at .]

[This message was edited by John B. Lyons on 08-21-08 at .]

[This message was edited by John B. Lyons on 08-22-08 at .]