Illinois Administrative Code › Title 92 - TRANSPORTATION › Part 1001 - PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS › Subpart D - STANDARDS FOR THE GRANTING OF RESTRICTED DRIVING PERMITS, REINSTATEMENT, AND THE TERMINATION OF CANCELLATIONS OF DRIVING PRIVILEGES BY THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE › Section 1001.400 - Applicability; Statement of Principle and Purpose

Current through Register Vol. 48, No. 28, July 12, 2024
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)). 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.
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. 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.