Section 1001.440 Provisions for Alcohol and Drug Related Revocations, Suspensions, and Cancellations

Section 1001

Section 1001.440 Provisions for Alcohol and Drug Related

Revocations, Suspensions, and Cancellations

a)         Documents/Evidence

Required. Except as provided in subsection (a)(1), in any application for

reinstatement, an RDP, or the termination of an order of cancellation at a show

cause hearing, all petitioners must submit an alcohol and drug evaluation and,

where required, evidence of successful completion of an alcohol and

drug-related driver risk education course and/or evidence of successful completion

of early intervention, treatment or proof of adequate rehabilitative progress.

These requirements apply to MDDP offenders whose permits are cancelled and who

apply for an RDP pursuant to IVC Section 6-206.1(l) and Section 1001.444(a) of

this Part.

1)         An

alcohol and drug evaluation and the evidence of successful completion of early

intervention or treatment submitted by a resident of Illinois must have been

conducted by an individual or an agency licensed by DSUPR.  An alcohol or

drug-related driver risk education course completed by an Illinois resident

must have been provided by an individual or agency licensed by DSUPR.  (See 77

Ill. Adm. Code 2060.201.)  Exceptions to these requirements will be allowed in

the following cases:

A)        If the petitioner is currently and has been temporarily

residing outside the State of Illinois

, then the updated

evaluation, early intervention, treatment, and driver risk education course may

be provided by an individual or agency accredited by the state in which the

individual or agency operates

;

B)        If the petitioner currently resides in Illinois but received

treatment for alcohol or drug abuse or dependence from a treatment program

located outside the State of Illinois that has been appropriately accredited by

the state in which it operates

, then the petitioner

may document the successful completion of that treatment in the manner provided

by subsection (m)

agency operates

;

B)        If the petitioner currently resides in Illinois but received

treatment for alcohol or drug abuse or dependence from a treatment program

located outside the State of Illinois that has been appropriately accredited by

the state in which it operates

, then the petitioner

may document the successful completion of that treatment in the manner provided

by subsection (m).  However, the petitioner's evaluation and driver risk

education course must be provided by an individual or agency licensed by DSUPR;

or

C)        If the petitioner successfully completed, after the most recent

arrest for DUI, a High Risk treatment program provided by an individual or

agency licensed by DSUPR.

2)         Choice

of Programs.  The choice of these programs is within the discretion of the

petitioner.  The evidence submitted must be printed, although the evaluator may

testify at any hearing.

3)         Evaluation

Standards.  The alcohol and drug evaluation (Uniform Report), as defined in

Section 1001.410, must conform to all current standards for an evaluation set

by DSUPR, where applicable, and/or to all current Secretary of State

requirements set forth in this Subpart D.  (See 77 Ill. Adm. Code 2060.503.)

The evaluation must be signed and dated by both petitioner and evaluator.  The

evaluation must include a recitation of:  the petitioner's alcohol/drug use

history, from first use to present use

; all DUI

dispositions, as defined in Section 1001.410, including any out-of-state DUI

disposition, regardless of whether the offense has been recorded to the

offender's Illinois driving record; any arrests or implied consent suspensions

for boating or snowmobiling under the influence that occurred within the last 5

years (as of the date of the hearing); a referral to early intervention or

treatment, or a referral to a treatment provider for the purpose of conducting

a Treatment Needs Assessment (see Section 1001.440(b)(7)); and the petitioner's

alcohol/drug‑related criminal convictions, as

sts or implied consent suspensions

for boating or snowmobiling under the influence that occurred within the last 5

years (as of the date of the hearing); a referral to early intervention or

treatment, or a referral to a treatment provider for the purpose of conducting

a Treatment Needs Assessment (see Section 1001.440(b)(7)); and the petitioner's

alcohol/drug‑related criminal convictions, as defined in Section 1001.410

.

The alcohol/drug use history must be recited in either the body of the

evaluation or an attachment to the evaluation.  The attachment must include the

evaluator's signature, the date it was composed, and the name of the agency or

program that is providing the evaluation.

4)         Driver

Risk Education Course.  The alcohol and drug-related driver risk education

course must, at a minimum, conform to the standards for alcohol/drug driver

risk education courses set by DSUPR.  (See 77 Ill. Adm. Code 2060.505.)  Any

alcohol or drug related driver risk education course required by this Part must

be completed after the date of the most recent arrest for DUI, BUI or SUI.

5)         Evaluation Must Be Current.  The alcohol and drug evaluation

must be current, which is defined as having been completed within 6 months

prior to the date of the hearing.

A)        Update Evaluation.  An update evaluation shall be conducted

only by means of an in-person interview and only by the same program that

conducted the original evaluation.  Exceptions to the latter requirement will

be allowed under the following circumstances:

i)          Transfer of File.  If the petitioner's

evaluation or treatment

file or copies of all

evaluation or treatment

file material are

transferred to another

evaluation or treatment

program that prepares the update.  The program that conducts the update evaluation

should explain, either in a separate cover letter or in the body of the update

evaluation, how, when and why the petitioner's file was transferred to it

File.  If the petitioner's

evaluation or treatment

file or copies of all

evaluation or treatment

file material are

transferred to another

evaluation or treatment

program that prepares the update.  The program that conducts the update evaluation

should explain, either in a separate cover letter or in the body of the update

evaluation, how, when and why the petitioner's file was transferred to it.  The

transfer will be considered acceptable only if the original evaluating program

can no longer provide evaluation services for reasons such as a suspended or

revoked license or voluntarily terminating evaluation business operations

, or if an individual service provider leaves the program

that conducted the original Uniform Report and the petitioner wishes to

continue receiving services from that individual, or if the petitioner

relocates to another part of the state.  In the latter case, the petitioner

carries the burden of proving relocation at least 50 miles from the original

service provider's nearest location

.  When transferring a file, the

sending program shall not allow it to be delivered by the petitioner to the

receiving agency.  If an update cannot be obtained by reviewing the original

case file information, another original evaluation must be submitted.

ii)         Treatment

Provider Who Can Perform Update Evaluations.  If the petitioner completes

primary treatment recommended as a result of the most recent alcohol and drug

evaluation, the program providing the treatment may prepare any subsequent

update evaluation from its own case file information without obtaining the

information from the evaluating program that made the treatment recommendation.

Furthermore, a chronological

alcohol/drug use

history may

be prepared by

the program that provided the treatment, when one is

requested by the petitioner, the Secretary or a hearing officer in a decision

entered as a result of a formal or informal hearing, to be submitted

as part of the petitioner's evidence at the next

hearing

om the evaluating program that made the treatment recommendation.

Furthermore, a chronological

alcohol/drug use

history may

be prepared by

the program that provided the treatment, when one is

requested by the petitioner, the Secretary or a hearing officer in a decision

entered as a result of a formal or informal hearing, to be submitted

as part of the petitioner's evidence at the next

hearing

.  A treatment provider may not conduct the update evaluation if

the only service it provided was early intervention or continuing care services,

or if it waives treatment, unless the petitioner's case file has been

transferred to it.

B)        Update

Evaluation – Content.  An Illinois and out-of-state update evaluation shall

report, at a minimum and when applicable, the following:  a description of

alcohol/drug use and/or abuse covering the time since the last evaluation or

update; the facts of any arrest or citation for a traffic or criminal offense

that is, in any way, alcohol/drug-related; any impairment of significant life

areas, any symptoms of alcohol/drug abuse or alcohol/drug-related problems

since the last evaluation or update; any current significant physical, medical,

emotional/mental health problem and participation in, and/or completion of, any

early intervention or treatment for that problem; whether the petitioner is

taking any prescription medication that, when taken alone or in combination

with alcohol or other drugs, might impair driving ability; any significant life

style changes since the previous evaluation; the petitioner's current peer

group and most important recreational activities; the petitioner's intent

regarding future of alcohol/drug use; if the petitioner is classified as High

Risk-Dependent, identification of the petitioner's support group and the

evaluator's assessment of its effectiveness and sufficiency; a response to the

issues raised at the petitioner's most recent hearing for driving relief and an

assessment of whether additional treatment is warranted; the eval

petitioner's intent

regarding future of alcohol/drug use; if the petitioner is classified as High

Risk-Dependent, identification of the petitioner's support group and the

evaluator's assessment of its effectiveness and sufficiency; a response to the

issues raised at the petitioner's most recent hearing for driving relief and an

assessment of whether additional treatment is warranted; the evaluator's

previous and current alcohol/drug-use classification of the petitioner; any

current recommendations and the rationale for those recommendations; and an

indication of whether the petitioner has completed all prior recommendations.

If the petitioner's Uniform Report did not include the

alcohol/drug use

history required by

subsection (a)(4), then it may be provided in an update evaluation.

The

update evaluation must be corroborated by an interview with a family member or

significant other.  The information obtained must be summarized and the

evaluator should indicate whether it corroborates the data provided by the

petitioner.  The update evaluation must be printed, on a form provided by the

Department, and verified by the evaluator.  (See subsection (a)(1).)

i)          Any

update evaluation that reclassifies a petitioner to or within a Moderate,

Significant or High Risk classification shall include a referral to a treatment

provider for the purpose of determining the need, if any, for additional

rehabilitative activity.  Any waiver of additional rehabilitative activity by

the treatment provider must be in writing and include the rationale for the

waiver.  Any recommendation for additional rehabilitative activity must be

complied with before relief will be granted.

ii)         A

petitioner may not submit an update evaluation if the Uniform Report being

updated does not discuss the most recent DUI disposition.  In such case the

petitioner must submit a Uniform Report

reatment provider must be in writing and include the rationale for the

waiver.  Any recommendation for additional rehabilitative activity must be

complied with before relief will be granted.

ii)         A

petitioner may not submit an update evaluation if the Uniform Report being

updated does not discuss the most recent DUI disposition.  In such case the

petitioner must submit a Uniform Report.

iii)        An

update evaluation may not reclassify a petitioner from a previous

classification unless the evaluator believes that the previous classification

was improper or in error and justifies and explains in detail why the previous

classification was improper or in error and why the new classification is

proper and appropriate.

C)        Investigative Evaluation − Content.  An Illinois and

Out-of-State investigative alcohol and drug evaluation shall report, at a

minimum and when applicable, the following: a complete alcohol and drug use

history

, from first use to present use, including a

recitation of any symptoms of alcohol/drug abuse or alcohol/drug‑related

problems experienced by the petitioner throughout the petitioner's alcohol/drug

use history; whether there is any history of alcoholism or drug addiction in

the petitioner's immediate family; whether the petitioner has a history of

treatment for alcohol/drug abuse; any current significant physical, medical,

emotional/mental health problem and participation in, and/or completion of, any

treatment for that problem; whether the petitioner is taking any prescription

medication that, when taken alone or in combination with alcohol or other

drugs, might impair driving ability; a response to the issues raised at the

petitioner's most recent hearing for driving relief and an assessment of

whether additional treatment is warranted

; a history of alcohol and

drug-related driving, boating, snowmobiling, and criminal offenses

(including all DUI dispositions, regardless of where the

offense occurred or whether it has been recorded to the offender's

impair driving ability; a response to the issues raised at the

petitioner's most recent hearing for driving relief and an assessment of

whether additional treatment is warranted

; a history of alcohol and

drug-related driving, boating, snowmobiling, and criminal offenses

(including all DUI dispositions, regardless of where the

offense occurred or whether it has been recorded to the offender's Illinois

driving record)

; a clinical impression of what the evaluation data

indicates and the rationale for that conclusion; any recommendations and the

rationale for such recommendations.  The evaluation must be corroborated by an

interview with a significant other and by the administration of an objective

test.  The information must be summarized and the evaluator should indicate

whether it corroborates the data provided by the petitioner.  The evaluation

must be printed, on a form provided by the Department, and verified by the

evaluator.  The program that completes the evaluation must meet the same

standards as programs qualified to prepare Uniform Reports. (See subsection

(a)(1).)

D)

Circumstances

When an Update of an Investigative Evaluation is Required.  If the evaluator

recommends any rehabilitative activity after conducting an Investigative

Evaluation, the petitioner must submit an update evaluation, as provided in

this Subpart D, until the petitioner's driving privileges are reinstated.  If

the evaluator concludes that the petitioner does not need any rehabilitative

activity (i.e., a driver risk education course, early intervention, or treatment

for

alcohol/drug abuse

), and the

Secretary accepts this conclusion, then the petitioner is not required to

submit an update evaluation at future hearings (assuming that there are no

intervening

alcohol/drug-related arrests or

incidents that might cause the Secretary to question this conclusion).

E)        Circumstances

When an Update Evaluation is Not Required

rly intervention, or treatment

for

alcohol/drug abuse

), and the

Secretary accepts this conclusion, then the petitioner is not required to

submit an update evaluation at future hearings (assuming that there are no

intervening

alcohol/drug-related arrests or

incidents that might cause the Secretary to question this conclusion).

E)        Circumstances

When an Update Evaluation is Not Required.

i)          Petitioners

classified at High Risk Dependent who have driven successfully on a restricted

driving permit for at least 3 years after submitting an original evaluation are

not required to provide an update evaluation if:

•           the

petitioner files for an extension or revision of the RDP, an additional RDP, or

for another hearing during the term of the current RDP; or

•           the

current RDP is expired for no more than 30 days at the time the petitioner

files for an extension or revision of the RDP, an additional RDP, or for

another hearing.  All other documentation required by this Subpart D must be

submitted.

ii)         For purposes of this subsection (a)(6)(F), a petitioner is

not deemed to have successfully driven on a restricted driving permit if the

petitioner is a BAIID permittee whose monitor reports reflect the use of

alcohol.

b)         Burden of Proof.  Before any driving relief will be granted,

the petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence:  that the petitioner

does not have a current problem with alcohol or other drugs; that the

petitioner is a low or minimal risk to repeat past abusive behaviors and the

operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or other

drugs; and that the petitioner has complied with all other standards as

specified in this Subpart D.  If the evidence establishes that the petitioner

has had an alcohol/drug problem, the petitioner must also prove that the

problem has been resolved

ioner is a low or minimal risk to repeat past abusive behaviors and the

operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or other

drugs; and that the petitioner has complied with all other standards as

specified in this Subpart D.  If the evidence establishes that the petitioner

has had an alcohol/drug problem, the petitioner must also prove that the

problem has been resolved. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the renewal of a

permit issued to a petitioner that is classified as High Risk Dependent shall

not be denied based on evidence including, but not limited to, BAIID

violations, that indicate a petitioner is not abstinent.

1)         Minimal

Risk.  Petitioners whose use of alcohol/drugs has been classified under this

Section as Minimal Risk must document successful completion of a 10 hour

alcohol/drug driver risk education course by submission of a document that

reflects the completion of the requirements contained in 77 Ill. Adm. Code

2060.505.  The driver risk education course cannot be waived, except as

provided in subsection (a)(1)(C).

2)         Moderate Risk.  Petitioners whose use of alcohol/drugs has

been classified under this Section as Moderate Risk must document successful

completion of an alcohol/drug driver risk education course as specified in

subsection (b)(1) and the early intervention and any additional treatment

recommended by the evaluator or other qualified professional recommended on

referral by the evaluator.  The driver risk education course cannot be waived,

except as provided in subsection (a)(1)(C)

ection as Moderate Risk must document successful

completion of an alcohol/drug driver risk education course as specified in

subsection (b)(1) and the early intervention and any additional treatment

recommended by the evaluator or other qualified professional recommended on

referral by the evaluator.  The driver risk education course cannot be waived,

except as provided in subsection (a)(1)(C).  The early intervention and/or

treatment must be provided by an individual or agency licensed to provide those

services by DSUPR or the Illinois Department of Public Health, or an individual

therapist who is licensed as a private practitioner by the Illinois Department

of Financial and Professional Regulation-Division of Professional Regulation,

or an out-of-state individual therapist or agency properly licensed by the

state in which the therapist operates.

3)         Significant

Risk.  Petitioners whose use of alcohol/drugs has been classified under this Section

as Significant Risk must document successful completion of an alcohol/drug

driver risk education course as specified in subsection (b)(1) and the

treatment recommended by the evaluator or other qualified professional

recommended on referral by the evaluator.  The driver risk education course

cannot be waived, except as provided in subsection (a)(1)(C).  The treatment

must be provided by an individual or agency licensed to provide those

treatments by DSUPR or the Illinois Department of Public Health, or an

individual therapist who is licensed as a private practitioner by the Illinois

Department of Financial and Professional Regulation-Division of Professional

Regulation, or an out-of-state individual therapist or agency properly licensed

by the state in which the therapist operates.

4)         High Risk Dependent

ovide those

treatments by DSUPR or the Illinois Department of Public Health, or an

individual therapist who is licensed as a private practitioner by the Illinois

Department of Financial and Professional Regulation-Division of Professional

Regulation, or an out-of-state individual therapist or agency properly licensed

by the state in which the therapist operates.

4)         High Risk Dependent.  Petitioners classified under this

Section as High Risk Dependent must document abstinence as required in

subsection (e); the completion of treatment provided by a facility or

facilitator licensed by DSUPR or the Illinois Department of Public Health, an

individual therapist who is licensed as a private practitioner by the Illinois

Department of Financial and Professional Regulation-Division of Professional

Regulation, or an out-of-state individual therapist or agency properly licensed

by the state in which the therapist operates;  the establishment of an ongoing

support/recovery program; and compliance with any additional recommendations of

the evaluator or treatment provider. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the renewal

of a permit issued to a petitioner that is classified as High Risk Dependent

shall not be denied based on BAIID violations that indicate the petitioner is

not abstinent.

5)         High Risk Nondependent.  Petitioners classified under this

Section as High Risk Nondependent must document: non-problematic use as

provided in subsection (f); treatment provided by a facility or facilitator

licensed by DSUPR or the Illinois Department of Public Health, an individual

therapist who is licensed as a private practitioner by the Illinois Department

of Financial and Professional Regulation-Division of Professional Regulation,

or an out-of-state individual therapist or agency properly licensed by the

state in which the therapist operates; compliance with any additional

recommendations of the evaluator or treatment provider, including abstinence;

and a detailed explanation by the treatment provide

te practitioner by the Illinois Department

of Financial and Professional Regulation-Division of Professional Regulation,

or an out-of-state individual therapist or agency properly licensed by the

state in which the therapist operates; compliance with any additional

recommendations of the evaluator or treatment provider, including abstinence;

and a detailed explanation by the treatment provider as to why dependency was

ruled out.  The failure of a petitioner to submit the "detailed

explanation" is sufficient grounds, in and of itself, to deny the petition

for driving relief.  The explanation should focus on the most recent offense.

6)         Investigative

Evaluation.  Petitioners who obtain an investigative alcohol/drug evaluation

must document the completion of any recommended intervention or treatment

provided by a facility or facilitator licensed by DSUPR or the Illinois

Department of Public Health, an individual therapist who is licensed as a

private practitioner by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional

Regulation-Division of Professional Regulation, or an out-of-state individual

therapist or agency properly licensed by the state in which the therapist

operates.  If found to be chemically dependent, then the petitioner must prove

abstinence as required in subsection (e) and the establishment of an ongoing

support/recovery program, and compliance with any additional recommendations of

the evaluator or treatment provider.

Furthermore, if

rehabilitative activity (i.e., a driver risk education course, intervention, or

treatment for

alcohol/drug abuse

) is

recommended, then

the petitioner must submit

an update evaluation, as provided in this Subpart D, until the petitioner's

driving privileges are reinstated.

7)         Treatment Waiver Required – Documentation of Most Recent

Treatment

tor or treatment provider.

Furthermore, if

rehabilitative activity (i.e., a driver risk education course, intervention, or

treatment for

alcohol/drug abuse

) is

recommended, then

the petitioner must submit

an update evaluation, as provided in this Subpart D, until the petitioner's

driving privileges are reinstated.

7)         Treatment Waiver Required – Documentation of Most Recent

Treatment.  In the event that a treatment provider does not require an

individual classified Moderate, Significant or High Risk to complete at least

the minimum amount and type of early intervention or treatment specified by DSUPR,

the treatment provider must supply the Department with a detailed explanation

of the rationale for that decision.  The driver risk education course cannot be

waived, except as provided in subsection (a)(1)(C).  In the course of assessing

whether to waive early intervention or treatment, the treatment provider should

attempt to obtain documentation of a petitioner's most recent treatment

experience and incorporate the information in this assessment if:  the

treatment provider contends that the petitioner's alcohol/drug use

classification should be changed to a lower risk classification, or the

documentation states that the petitioner's prognosis at the time of discharge

was guarded.  The treatment provider should be prepared to explain the reasons

for not obtaining this documentation and to provide written verification that

the documentation is not available.  The Secretary reserves the discretion to

reject a waiver of treatment if the hearing officer is able to articulate

specific reasons to doubt its validity.

8)

Treatment

Needs Assessment Required; Documentation of Most Recent Treatment.  Whenever a

service provider conducts and

composes a

Uniform Report, it is required to refer the petitioner to a treatment provider

for an assessment of whether intervention or treatment for alcohol/drug abuse

is warranted, pursuant to DSUPR rules at 77 Ill. Adm. Code Section

2060.503(h)

ns to doubt its validity.

8)

Treatment

Needs Assessment Required; Documentation of Most Recent Treatment.  Whenever a

service provider conducts and

composes a

Uniform Report, it is required to refer the petitioner to a treatment provider

for an assessment of whether intervention or treatment for alcohol/drug abuse

is warranted, pursuant to DSUPR rules at 77 Ill. Adm. Code Section

2060.503(h).  The petitioner must provide a Treatment Needs Assessment

whenever another Uniform Report is composed, regardless of whether the

petitioner successfully completed intervention or treatment after the previous

Uniform Report, in order to inform the Secretary whether additional

intervention or treatment is warranted as a result of the information obtained

during the course of the subsequent Uniform Report.  The Treatment Needs

Assessment shall be composed on the treatment provider's letterhead stationery

or incorporated into the "Treatment Verification" form composed,

published and distributed by the Department.  If composed on stationery, then

the Treatment Needs Assessment must be signed and dated by the counselor

responsible for the assessment

.

A)        The

Treatment Needs Assessment must be provided by a licensed treatment provider

regardless of whether the petitioner has committed any traffic or criminal

offense that mandates the composition of a Uniform Report.

B)        In the

course of conducting the Treatment Needs Assessment, the treatment provider

should attempt to obtain documentation of a petitioner's most recent treatment

experience and incorporate the information in this assessment, along with the

petitioner's conduct since that treatment experience, in the provider's

findings and conclusions.  The treatment provider should be prepared to explain

the reasons for not obtaining this documentation and to provide written

verification that the documentation is not available.

9)         BAIID

Violations

treatment

experience and incorporate the information in this assessment, along with the

petitioner's conduct since that treatment experience, in the provider's

findings and conclusions.  The treatment provider should be prepared to explain

the reasons for not obtaining this documentation and to provide written

verification that the documentation is not available.

9)         BAIID

Violations.  BAIID violations that indicate the consumptions of alcohol shall

not serve as a sole basis for not renewing, cancelling or revoking a permit.

c)         Rebuttable Presumption.  The presence of more than one DUI

disposition on a petitioner's abstract shall create a rebuttable presumption

that the petitioner suffers from a current alcohol/drug problem and should,

therefore, be classified at least Significant Risk.

d)         Evidence Considered.  Evidence which shall be considered in

determining whether the petitioner has met the burden of proof and has overcome

the presumption of a current alcohol/drug problem includes, but is not limited

to, the following, where applicable:

1)         The factors enumerated in Section 1001.430(c);

2)         The similarity of circumstances between alcohol or

drug-related arrests;

3)         Any property damage or personal injury caused by the

petitioner while driving under the influence;

4)         Changes in life style and alcohol/drug use patterns following

alcohol/drug-related arrest, and the reasons for the change;

5)         The chronological relationship of alcohol/drug-related

arrests;

6)         Length of alcohol/drug abuse pattern;

7)         Degree of self-acceptance of alcohol/drug problem;

8)         Degree of involvement in or successful completion of prior

treatment/intervention recommendations following alcohol/drug related arrests

and in a support/recovery program;

9)         Prior relapses from attempted abstinence, except that BAIID

violations that indicate the consumption of alcohol, shall not serve as the

sole basis for not renewing or cancelling a

alcohol/drug problem;

8)         Degree of involvement in or successful completion of prior

treatment/intervention recommendations following alcohol/drug related arrests

and in a support/recovery program;

9)         Prior relapses from attempted abstinence, except that BAIID

violations that indicate the consumption of alcohol, shall not serve as the

sole basis for not renewing or cancelling a permit;

10)         Identification, treatment and resolution of the cause of the

high risk behavior of any petitioner classified High Risk Nondependent;

11)         The problems, pressures and/or external forces alleged to

have precipitated the petitioner's abuse of alcohol or other drugs on the

occasion of each alcohol/drug-related arrest, and the present status of the

same, particularly whether they have been satisfactorily resolved;

12)         The petitioner's explanation for the multiple arrests and/or

convictions for offenses involving alcohol/drugs, particularly for allowing the

second and subsequent arrests/convictions to occur;

13)         In out-of-state petitions, the evaluator's rationale for

classifying a petitioner with multiple DUI dispositions as a Minimal or

Moderate Risk.  In these cases it is particularly important that the

evaluator's classification be based on complete and accurate information;

14)         The petitioner's criminal history, particularly drug offenses

or offenses that in any way involved alcohol/drugs;

15)         The petitioner's chemical test results of the petitioner's

blood, breath or urine from all previous arrests or all previous

alcohol/drug-related offenses (not just traffic offenses) in addition to the

chemical test results of the most recent arrest;

16)         The extent to which, in terms of completeness and

thoroughness, a petitioner and service providers have addressed every issue

raised by the hearing officers in previous hearings;

17)         It is particularly important that the evaluator's

classification be based on complete, accurate and consistent i

ic offenses) in addition to the

chemical test results of the most recent arrest;

16)         The extent to which, in terms of completeness and

thoroughness, a petitioner and service providers have addressed every issue

raised by the hearing officers in previous hearings;

17)         It is particularly important that the evaluator's

classification be based on complete, accurate and consistent information,

especially all of the petitioner's DUI arrests and BAC test results.  The

probative value of evaluations that deviate from this standard will be

diminished.  The degree to which their probative value will be diminished will

depend upon the degree to which the evaluation deviates from this standard and

the standards imposed by DSUPR;

18)         The petitioner's record of performance while driving with an

interlock device and record of compliance with the terms and conditions of the

breath alcohol ignition interlock device program or the monitoring device

driving permit program. A BAIID violation indicating consumption of alcohol may

not be the sole basis for denying driving relief;

19)         Written

or verbal statements from members of the public, including crime victims as

defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure [725 ILCS 120/3] or family members of

victims of offenses committed by a petitioner, so long as the statement is

relevant to the issues at the hearing;

20)         The service provider's clinical rationale or

justification for changing the classification of a petitioner's

alcohol/drug use

, or for giving a

classification that is different than that given in other evaluation or

treatment documents or by other service providers;

21)         The

treatment provider's explanation for failing to obtain, when requested,

documentation of the petitioner's most recent treatment;

22)         Whether

the petitioner has been incarcerated and was recently released after an

extended period of incarceration and whether the petitioner participated in any

rehabilitative activity during incarce

ocuments or by other service providers;

21)         The

treatment provider's explanation for failing to obtain, when requested,

documentation of the petitioner's most recent treatment;

22)         Whether

the petitioner has been incarcerated and was recently released after an

extended period of incarceration and whether the petitioner participated in any

rehabilitative activity during incarceration.

e)         Documentation of Abstinence

1)         Petitioners classified as High Risk Dependent, or any other

petitioner with a recommendation of abstinence by a DSUPR licensed evaluator or

treatment provider, must have a minimum of 12 consecutive months of documented

abstinence, except as provided in subsections (e)(3), (4) and (7), in regard to

opiate substitution, medical cannabis programs, and BAIID permittees.  This

means that the petitioner must be abstinent from alcohol and all controlled

substances, legal and illegal, unless the drug is prescribed by a physician,

and regardless of whether alcohol or another drug was the petitioner's drug of

choice when using.  Abstinence that occurs during a period of extended

incarceration is not favored, unless petitioner took proactive steps toward

rehabilitation while incarcerated, as it occurs in a controlled environment.

Documentation of abstinence must be received from at least 3 independent

sources.  The sources should not be fellow members of a support group unless

those members have regular and frequent contact with the petitioner outside the

group meetings.  The hearing officer shall determine the weight to be accorded

the documentation, taking into account the credibility of the source and the

totality of the evidence adduced at the hearing.  Letters or witness testimony

establishing abstinence should contain, at a minimum, the following:

A)        The person's relationship to petitioner (friend, family member,

fellow employee, etc.).

B)        How

long the person has known the petitioner

ht to be accorded

the documentation, taking into account the credibility of the source and the

totality of the evidence adduced at the hearing.  Letters or witness testimony

establishing abstinence should contain, at a minimum, the following:

A)        The person's relationship to petitioner (friend, family member,

fellow employee, etc.).

B)        How

long the person has known the petitioner.

C)        How often the person sees the petitioner (daily, weekly,

monthly, etc.).

D)        How

long the person knows the petitioner has abstained.

E)        Each letter must be dated and signed by its authors. All

letters must be submitted in their original form and should be dated no more

than 45 days prior to the hearing date.  Telephone facsimiles and photocopies

of original letters will be admitted into evidence pending the submission of

the original within a reasonable number of days as determined by the presiding

hearing officer.  The petitioner's failure to maintain strict compliance with

these requirements shall not be the sole basis for withdrawing from a hearing

or denying relief.

2)         Petitioners who are classified as Significant Risk or High

Risk Non-Dependent and who are required by IVC Sections 6-205(a)(1.5) and

6-206(c)(3)(F) to prove 3 years of uninterrupted abstinence in order to obtain

an RDP may prove that this abstinence occurred during any period of time after

the most recent arrest for driving under the influence.  Petitioners who are

classified as High Risk Dependent who are required to prove 3 years of

uninterrupted abstinence by IVC Sections 6-205(a)(1.5) and 6-206(c)(3)(F) in

order to obtain an RDP must prove that their period of abstinence began after

the most recent arrest for driving under the influence.  They must also prove

that they have been abstinent for the 3 years immediately prior to their

hearing.  Proof of abstinence must comply with the requirements of subsection

3 years of

uninterrupted abstinence by IVC Sections 6-205(a)(1.5) and 6-206(c)(3)(F) in

order to obtain an RDP must prove that their period of abstinence began after

the most recent arrest for driving under the influence.  They must also prove

that they have been abstinent for the 3 years immediately prior to their

hearing.  Proof of abstinence must comply with the requirements of subsection

(e)(1).

3)         Waivers

of the rule requiring 12 months of abstinence are discretionary when

considering an RDP but shall not be granted unless the petitioner proves at

least 6 months continuous abstinence at the time of the hearing.

4)         Opiate

Substitution Programs.  Petitioners who are able to document that they are

involved in a long-term opiate substitution program, such as methadone

maintenance, are not required to prove abstinence from the substitute drug that

has been prescribed to them in order to obtain driving relief.  Rather, they

must prove that they have been stable in the program for at least one year.  The

petitioner's documentation must include an Opiate Substitution form completed

by the petitioner, the petitioner's primary or reviewing physician, and the

petitioner's primary substance abuse provider or evaluator.  The petitioner

must satisfy the other requirements of this Subpart D, including abstinence

from alcohol and all other drugs, in order to obtain driving relief.

5)         Use

of Medical Cannabis.  Petitioners who are able to document that a physician has

recommended the use of what is defined and authorized as "medical

cannabis" in the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Program Act are not

required to prove abstinence from the cannabis that has been recommended in

order to obtain driving relief.  Rather, they must prove that they are stable

lief.

5)         Use

of Medical Cannabis.  Petitioners who are able to document that a physician has

recommended the use of what is defined and authorized as "medical

cannabis" in the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Program Act are not

required to prove abstinence from the cannabis that has been recommended in

order to obtain driving relief.  Rather, they must prove that they are stable.

Petitioners who are classified as high-risk dependent

and who have been diagnosed as dependent on cannabis must prove stability in

the program for a minimum of 6 months before an RDP may be issued and a minimum

of 12 months before reinstatement.  The petitioner's

documentation must

include a Medical Cannabis form completed by the petitioner, the petitioner's

primary or reviewing physician, and the petitioner's primary substance abuse

provider or evaluator.  The petitioner must satisfy the other requirements of

this Subpart D, including abstinence from alcohol and all other drugs, in order

to obtain driving relief.

6)

Use of Prescribed Opiate Medication.  Petitioners who are

able to document that a physician has prescribed opiate medication are not

required to prove abstinence from the prescribed opiates in order to obtain

driving relief.  Rather, they must prove that they are stable on the prescribed

opiate medication.  Petitioners who are classified as high-risk dependent and

who have been diagnosed as dependent on the prescribed opiate must prove

stability in the program for a minimum of 6 months before an RDP may be issued

and a minimum of 12 months before granted reinstatement. The petitioner's

documentation must include an Opiate Medication form completed by the

petitioner, the petitioner's primary or reviewing physician, and the

petitioner's primary substance abuse provider or evaluator. The petitioner must

satisfy the other requirements of this Subpart D, including abstinence from

alcohol and all other drugs, in order to obtain driving relief

anted reinstatement. The petitioner's

documentation must include an Opiate Medication form completed by the

petitioner, the petitioner's primary or reviewing physician, and the

petitioner's primary substance abuse provider or evaluator. The petitioner must

satisfy the other requirements of this Subpart D, including abstinence from

alcohol and all other drugs, in order to obtain driving relief.

7)         Consumption

of "Near-Alcoholic" Beverages.  The consumption of "near‑alcoholic"

beverages does not violate the rule requiring abstinence.  However, this

conduct is a valid subject to be considered in determining the ultimate issue

of whether the petitioner has met the burden of proving that the petitioner

will be a safe and responsible driver.  The Secretary will consider the

petitioner's motivation for consuming near-alcoholic beverages, the

circumstances under which they are consumed (when, where, why, with whom and

how often), the strength of the petitioner's support system, the petitioner's

degree of acceptance of the alcoholism/chemical dependency, and whether

near-alcoholic beverages were ever used in the past (and whether this use

occurred before or after the commission of a DUI).  The petitioner carries the

burden of proving that the use of near-alcoholic beverages is not a matter of

concern.

8)         When

considering the renewal of an RDP for a petitioner classified as High Risk

Dependent who currently utilizes a BAIID, the petitioner shall not be denied

relief solely because the petitioner has failed to maintain abstinence.

f)         Documentation of Non-Problematic Use

1)         Petitioners classified as High Risk Nondependent must

demonstrate at least 12 consecutive months of non-problematic alcohol use, or

abstinence, and abstinence from the use of illegal drugs.  This evidence must

be submitted from at least 3 independent sources and generally comply with the

standards set forth in subsection (e)

bstinence.

f)         Documentation of Non-Problematic Use

1)         Petitioners classified as High Risk Nondependent must

demonstrate at least 12 consecutive months of non-problematic alcohol use, or

abstinence, and abstinence from the use of illegal drugs.  This evidence must

be submitted from at least 3 independent sources and generally comply with the

standards set forth in subsection (e).

2)         Waivers

are discretionary when considering an RDP, but shall not be granted unless the

petitioner demonstrates at least 6 months of non-problematic alcohol use, or

abstinence, and abstinence from the use of illegal drugs.

g)         Documentation of Support/Recovery Program

1)         If the petitioner has been attending a support/recovery

program, the petitioner must present at least 3 dated and signed letters or

witness testimony from fellow support/recovery program members documenting at a

minimum the following:

A)        How

long the person has known the petitioner;

B)        How long the person knows that the petitioner has attended the

program;

C)        How

often the petitioner attends the program.

2)         The hearing officer shall determine the weight to be accorded

the documentation, taking into account the credibility of the source and the

totality of the evidence adduced at the hearing.  Each letter must be dated and

signed by its authors.  All letters must be submitted in their original form

and should be dated no more than 45 days prior to the hearing date.  Telephone

facsimiles and photocopies of original letters will be admitted into evidence

pending the submission of the original within a reasonable number of days as

determined by the presiding hearing officer. The petitioner's failure to

maintain strict compliance with these requirements shall not be the sole basis

for withdrawing from a hearing or denying relief.

h)         Internet Support/Recovery Programs

iles and photocopies of original letters will be admitted into evidence

pending the submission of the original within a reasonable number of days as

determined by the presiding hearing officer. The petitioner's failure to

maintain strict compliance with these requirements shall not be the sole basis

for withdrawing from a hearing or denying relief.

h)         Internet Support/Recovery Programs.  A petitioner's

participation in internet Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous or other

support/recovery program "chat rooms" or any other support/recovery

program services available over the internet may be an acceptable substitute

for the regular attendance of meetings in person.

The

factors to be considered by the hearing officer and the Secretary in evaluating

the effectiveness and probative value of this form of support include, but are

not limited to, the following:  the petitioner's reasons for not attending

meetings in person; the petitioner's

alcohol/drug

use

history

and history of

relapse; the length of the petitioner's abstinence at the time of the hearing;

the proximity of A.A. and N.A. meetings to the petitioner's residence and

workplace; the petitioner's physical/medical condition, as it affects the

ability to travel; the availability of public and private transportation to

meetings; whether the petitioner has attended meetings in person in the past,

and the length of that attendance; whether the petitioner's evaluator and

treatment provider are aware and approve of the petitioner's participation in

this form of support; the extent of the petitioner's knowledge of, commitment

to, and involvement in the program; the extent of the petitioner's knowledge of

the disease process of alcoholism/chemical dependence; the extent of the

petitioner's acceptance of the alcoholism/chemical dependence.  The

participation in internet support/recovery program chat rooms is not favored by

the Secretary of State

orm of support; the extent of the petitioner's knowledge of, commitment

to, and involvement in the program; the extent of the petitioner's knowledge of

the disease process of alcoholism/chemical dependence; the extent of the

petitioner's acceptance of the alcoholism/chemical dependence.  The

participation in internet support/recovery program chat rooms is not favored by

the Secretary of State.  Therefore, substantial documentation and testimony

regarding this method of support is required in order for the petitioner to

carry the burden of proof on this issue, including identification of the

specific websites that the petitioner uses and verification of the petitioner's

participation by chat room members.

i)          Non-Traditional Support/Recovery Programs

1)         If the petitioner's support/recovery program does not involve

a structured, organized, recognized program such as A.A. or N.A., the

petitioner is required to identify what that program is and explain how it

works and keeps petitioner abstinent.  The petitioner is required to present

either witness testimony or written verification of the program from at least

three independent sources involved in the program.  If the verification is in

the form of letters, those letters should be signed and dated.  All such

evidence must contain, at a minimum, the following:

A)        The person's relationship to the petitioner (friend, family

member, fellow employee, etc.);

B)        How

long the person has known the petitioner;

C)        How often the person sees the petitioner (daily, weekly,

monthly, etc.);

D)        How the person is involved in the petitioner's recovery program

and what role the person plays in helping the petitioner abstain from

alcohol/drugs;

E)        What changes the person has seen in the petitioner since

petitioner's abstinence

etc.);

B)        How

long the person has known the petitioner;

C)        How often the person sees the petitioner (daily, weekly,

monthly, etc.);

D)        How the person is involved in the petitioner's recovery program

and what role the person plays in helping the petitioner abstain from

alcohol/drugs;

E)        What changes the person has seen in the petitioner since

petitioner's abstinence.

2)         The hearing officer shall determine the weight to be accorded

the documentation, taking into account the credibility of the source and the

totality of the evidence adduced at the hearing.  Each letter must be dated and

signed by its authors.  All letters must be submitted in their original form

and should be dated no more than 45 days prior to the hearing date.  Telephone

facsimiles and photocopies of original letters will be admitted into evidence

pending the submission of the original within a reasonable number of days as

determined by the presiding hearing officer.

j)          Support/Recovery

Program Sponsor.  If the petitioner has a support/recovery program sponsor, a

letter should be obtained (or the testimony submitted) from the sponsor

documenting the data in subsection (g)(1).  The purpose of a letter or the

testimony of an A.A. sponsor is to provide the Secretary with substantial

detail regarding the petitioner's progress and development in the A.A.

program.  However, this letter or testimony can also be used to satisfy the

requirements of subsection (g).  The submission of a letter from a petitioner's

sponsor is not mandatory, but is strongly recommended.  A petitioner's failure

to submit a letter from the sponsor is not, by itself, a sufficient basis upon

which to deny driving relief.

k)         RDP for Support/Recovery Program − Information

Required

er, this letter or testimony can also be used to satisfy the

requirements of subsection (g).  The submission of a letter from a petitioner's

sponsor is not mandatory, but is strongly recommended.  A petitioner's failure

to submit a letter from the sponsor is not, by itself, a sufficient basis upon

which to deny driving relief.

k)         RDP for Support/Recovery Program − Information

Required.  In cases in which a petitioner seeks an RDP to allow driving to

support/recovery program meetings, the petitioner must provide specific

information identifying, at a minimum, the following:

1)         The locations of the meetings the petitioner wishes to attend;

2)         The days of the week when meetings are held at these

locations;

3)         The hours of the day when these meetings are held.

l)          Early Intervention − Information Required.  If the

petitioner has undergone early intervention (Moderate Risk classification), the

petitioner must provide a narrative summary that includes, at a minimum, the

following:

1)         The name, address and telephone number of the licensed service

provider;

2)         The dates the petitioner began and completed early

intervention, as well as the number of days or hours the petitioner was

involved in the intervention process;

3)         A summary discussion of the intervention provided and its

outcome, specifically, those issues that were addressed or explored and the

provider's perception of what the petitioner gained from the experience and the

petitioner's ability to avoid future development of alcohol problems;

4)         The rationale for any modification in the early intervention

requirements specified by DSUPR;

5)         The dated signature of the professional staff person providing

the early intervention information; and

6)         The narrative summary shall be composed on the treatment

provider's letterhead stationery.

m)        Treatment − Information Required

development of alcohol problems;

4)         The rationale for any modification in the early intervention

requirements specified by DSUPR;

5)         The dated signature of the professional staff person providing

the early intervention information; and

6)         The narrative summary shall be composed on the treatment

provider's letterhead stationery.

m)        Treatment − Information Required.  If the petitioner has

had alcohol or drug related treatment, the petitioner must provide the

information listed in this subsection (m).  A petitioner is required only to

submit proof of the most recent primary treatment experience.

1)         A narrative summary that includes, at a minimum:

A)        The name, address and telephone number of treatment center;

B)        The date the petitioner entered primary treatment and the date

the petitioner was discharged from treatment; the number of days or hours the

petitioner was involved in treatment; the admitting and discharge diagnosis;

C)        The type of treatment received (e.g., outpatient, intensive

outpatient or inpatient treatment; individual or group therapy);

D)        A clinical impression or prognosis of either a Moderate or

Significant Risk petitioner's ability to maintain a non-problematic pattern, or

a High Risk petitioner's ability to maintain a stable recovery where

applicable.  Specifically, the treatment provider's perception of what the

petitioner gained from the treatment experience and whether the experience was

sufficient to substantially minimize the possibility of a recurrence of

alcohol/drug related problems;

E)        Any recommendations for continuing care or follow-up support,

and an indication of the petitioner's participation, if applicable;

F)         The rationale for any modification in the treatment

requirements specified by DSUPR;

G)        The dated signature of the professional staff person providing

the treatment information

possibility of a recurrence of

alcohol/drug related problems;

E)        Any recommendations for continuing care or follow-up support,

and an indication of the petitioner's participation, if applicable;

F)         The rationale for any modification in the treatment

requirements specified by DSUPR;

G)        The dated signature of the professional staff person providing

the treatment information.

2)         Copies of the following documents required by DSUPR:

A)        Individualized Treatment Plan.  (See 77 Ill. Adm. Code

2060.421.)

B)        Discharge Summary and Continuing Care Plan.  (See 77 Ill. Adm.

Code 2060.427.)

3)         A current status report regarding the petitioner's involvement

in continuing care.  The Continuing Care Status Report must discuss the

petitioner's level of progress in completing follow-up activities outlined in

the Continuing Care Plan.  It may be composed by either the evaluator or the

treatment provider, and shall be composed on the letterhead stationery of the

agency or individual who authored the report.  If continuing care has been

completed, a final summary report must be provided that discusses the

petitioner's progress throughout the course of completing all follow-up

activities detailed in the Continuing Care Plan.  If continuing care has been

determined to be unnecessary, a report must be provided that discusses the

clinical rationale for that decision.  This waiver may be composed only by the

treatment provider.

4)         The Department reserves the discretion to require a petitioner

to submit a Treatment Needs Assessment or a waiver of treatment as a

consequence of a petitioner being unable to provide documentation of

treatment.  If the petitioner and the evaluator or treatment provider are

unable to provide the required information or treatment documents, they must

provide documentary evidence of their attempts to obtain the information and

the reason for its unavailability

ubmit a Treatment Needs Assessment or a waiver of treatment as a

consequence of a petitioner being unable to provide documentation of

treatment.  If the petitioner and the evaluator or treatment provider are

unable to provide the required information or treatment documents, they must

provide documentary evidence of their attempts to obtain the information and

the reason for its unavailability.

5)         The information required in

subsection (m)(1) should be provided in the "Treatment Verification"

form composed, published and distributed to treatment providers as a courtesy

by the Department.  However, a petitioner's failure to submit a Treatment

Verification form is not a sufficient basis, in and of itself, to deny driving

relief, so long as the information required in subsection (m)(1) is submitted

in some other format or in the other documents required to be submitted.

n)         Evaluation Written for Court.  If a petitioner presents an

alcohol/drug evaluation that was obtained for the purpose of being sentenced on

a DUI charge or some other traffic or criminal offense, that evaluation must

meet the requirements of this Section in order to be accepted by the Secretary

of State.