Section 1001.400 Applicability; Statement of Principle and Purpose

Section 1001.400

Applicability; Statement of Principle and Purpose

a)          Applicability.  This Subpart applies to the decision making

process on applications for:  restricted driving permits by persons whose

driving privileges have been suspended, revoked, cancelled or denied; the

issuance of restricted driving permits conditioned upon the installation of a

breath alcohol ignition interlock device (BAIID); the reinstatement of driving

privileges; the granting of driving privileges after denial; and the

termination of cancellations.  Each petitioner's case is unique and all of the

evidence and the petitioner's entire driving record must be considered with

these standards before a decision is made.  The issuance of both forms of

driving relief are discretionary with the Secretary of State upon the evidence

presented as set forth in this Subpart D.

b)         Statement of Principle

and Purpose

1)         In cases in which a person's driver's license

and driving privileges are suspended or revoked, the Secretary has been given

the following statutory mandate:

In no event shall the Secretary issue such

license unless and until such person has had a hearing pursuant to

the

Code and the appropriate administrative rules and the Secretary is satisfied,

after a review or investigation of such person, that to grant the privilege of

driving a motor vehicle on the highways will not endanger the public safety or

welfare.

[625 ILCS 5/6-208]  In the discharge of this mandate, this Subpart

D provides guidance to both the Department and the public for issuing and

obtaining driving relief.

2)         In the implementation of this Subpart D,

the Office of the Secretary of State subscribes to the disease concept of

alcoholism/chemical dependency, as defined in the Alcoholism and Other Drug

Abuse and Dependency Act [20 ILCS 301/1-10] and incorporates by reference the

Jellinek chart (E.M. Jellinek, The Disease Concept of Alcoholism, Hillhouse

Press (1960, no further amendments or additions included))

implementation of this Subpart D,

the Office of the Secretary of State subscribes to the disease concept of

alcoholism/chemical dependency, as defined in the Alcoholism and Other Drug

Abuse and Dependency Act [20 ILCS 301/1-10] and incorporates by reference the

Jellinek chart (E.M. Jellinek, The Disease Concept of Alcoholism, Hillhouse

Press (1960, no further amendments or additions included)).

Furthermore,

it is the policy of the Secretary of State that this Subpart D is to be read,

interpreted, and applied as an integrated whole, rather than separately and

individually.  Therefore, the purpose of this Subpart D is to

assist the hearing process to

determine, first, the

nature and extent of a petitioner's alcohol/drug problem; second, whether the

petitioner's alcohol/drug problem has been resolved; and, third, whether the

petitioner will be a safe and responsible driver.  The petitioner must carry the

burden of proof on each of these 3 issues by clear and convincing evidence in order

to obtain driving relief.  A petitioner cannot prove that the petitioner will

be a safe and responsible driver unless and until the petitioner has proven

that the alcohol/drug problem has been resolved.  The fact the petitioner has

abstained from the use of alcohol/drugs is not sufficient, in and of itself, to

prove that the petitioner's alcohol/drug problem has been resolved.  Rather, a

petitioner must also demonstrate successful completion of  all recommended

countermeasures and that significant improvement has occurred in the

petitioner's attitude and lifestyle from that which existed at the time of the

offenses resulting in the suspension or revocation of driving privileges, so

that the Secretary will be reasonably assured that the petitioner will be a

safe and responsible driver in the future

emonstrate successful completion of  all recommended

countermeasures and that significant improvement has occurred in the

petitioner's attitude and lifestyle from that which existed at the time of the

offenses resulting in the suspension or revocation of driving privileges, so

that the Secretary will be reasonably assured that the petitioner will be a

safe and responsible driver in the future.

3)         It is

also the policy of the Secretary of State that a complete and accurate

alcohol/drug use history is essential in determining the nature and extent of a

petitioner's alcohol/drug problem and that a service provider's classification

of a petitioner's alcohol/drug problem is not credible without a complete and

accurate alcohol/drug use history.  Furthermore, significant discrepancies

and/or inconsistencies among or between the alcohol/drug use history recited in

an alcohol/drug evaluation and the petitioner's testimony at a driver's license

hearing, or the other evidence admitted at a hearing, renders suspect and

unreliable a service provider's classification of a petitioner's alcohol/drug

problem.

4)         The

use of breath alcohol ignition interlock device (BAIID) pursuant to the

provisions of this Subpart D is an effective tool to prevent individuals from

operating a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol.  When a BAIID registers a

violation showing a permittee who has been issued a monitoring device driving

permit or a restricted driving permit that requires the use of a BAIID has

attempted to start a vehicle after consuming alcohol, that violation is proof

the permittee continues to require the use of a BAIID.  Therefore, BAIID

violations that indicate the consumption of alcohol should never serve as the

sole basis for cancelling or revoking a permit, which would result in the

removal of the BAIID from the permittee's vehicle

ermit that requires the use of a BAIID has

attempted to start a vehicle after consuming alcohol, that violation is proof

the permittee continues to require the use of a BAIID.  Therefore, BAIID

violations that indicate the consumption of alcohol should never serve as the

sole basis for cancelling or revoking a permit, which would result in the

removal of the BAIID from the permittee's vehicle.  Instead, any BAIID

violation involving the consumption of alcohol will be made part of the BAIID

permittee's record of performance to be considered at the petitioner's next

formal hearing for driving relief.  A BAID Multiple Offender (BMO) permittee

who does not meet the requirements of Subpart D at the time of reinstatement as

a result of BAIID violations incurred during the monitoring period may only be

renewed for a maximum of 12 months. The petitioner must come into compliance

with all provisions of Subpart D during that 12-month renewal period.  Failure

to come into compliance with Subpart D will result in denial of reinstatement

and restart the 1,826-day requirement in Sec. 1001.443.

5)         This Subpart

D is to be read, interpreted, and applied as an integrated whole.  Therefore, it

is insufficient to a determination of whether a petitioner's alcohol/drug

problem has been resolved and whether the petitioner will be a safe and

responsible driver for a petitioner to prove the successful completion or

accomplishment of only some or part of the requirements of the classification

of the petitioner's alcohol/drug use.  Primarily, proof of long-term abstinence

from the use of alcohol/drugs is insufficient to obtain driving relief without

the successful completion or accomplishment of the other requirements of the

classification of a petitioner's alcohol/drug use.  To do so would allow for

the arbitrary application of this Subpart D.