The administrative license hearing, and when a court decides instead

In Missouri, the administrative license hearing is a review of the department's own determination. Missouri's statute provides that any person who has received a notice of suspension or revocation may request a review of the department's determination at a hearing, and that a license not previously surrendered may be surrendered when the request is made. If the record shows the person holds a valid driver's license issued by Missouri and the license has been surrendered, the statute directs the department to issue a temporary permit valid until the scheduled hearing date. It adds that the department may later issue further temporary permits to stay the effective date of the suspension or revocation until the final order following the hearing, as a related Missouri section requires.

Idaho's statute describes a narrower proceeding. A person who has been served with a notice of suspension and a notice of the requirement to install an ignition interlock system after submitting to an evidentiary test may request an administrative hearing on the suspension before a hearing officer designated by the department. The request must be in writing, must be received by the department within the period the statute sets from the date of service of those notices, and must state the issue or issues to be raised. That provision concerns Idaho test-submission suspensions, not refusals.

Missouri's statute provides that the hearing is conducted by examiners who are licensed to practice law in Missouri and who are employed by the department on a part-time or full-time basis. The hearing may be held by telephone or, if requested by the person or the person's attorney or representative, at a regional location designated by the director. The statute states that the procedure follows a cross-referenced chapter of Missouri law together with the license-review sections, and that a report certified under a cross-referenced section is admissible like a verified report as evidence of the facts stated in it.

In Michigan, the statute governing chemical-test refusal hearings provides that the secretary of state holds the hearing in the same manner and under the same conditions as a separate cross-referenced section. The hearing officer may administer oaths, issue subpoenas for the attendance of necessary witnesses, and grant a reasonable request for an adjournment, and must make a record of the hearing.

Idaho's statute provides that the department may conduct all hearings by telephone if each participant has an opportunity to participate in the entire proceeding while it is taking place.

Missouri's statute provides that the sole issue at the hearing is whether, by a preponderance of the evidence, the person was driving a vehicle under the circumstances set out in a cross-referenced Missouri section. The burden of proof is on the state. If the department finds the affirmative of that issue, the suspension or revocation order is sustained; if it finds the negative, the order is rescinded.

Michigan's statute provides that a chemical-test refusal hearing covers only these issues: whether the peace officer had reasonable grounds to believe the person committed a crime described in a cross-referenced section; whether the person was placed under arrest for such a crime; if the person refused the test on the officer's request, whether the refusal was reasonable; and whether the person was advised of rights under a cross-referenced section. The statute also provides that a person shall not order a hearing officer to make a particular finding on any of those issues.

Idaho's statute provides that its hearing may be held only on the suspension and not on the requirement to install an ignition interlock system. Each issue list above belongs to the named statute alone.

The DC DMV describes its process in agency guidance, not a statute. According to that guidance, a driver served with an Official Notice of Proposed Revocation may schedule a permit hearing in person at DC DMV Adjudication Services or by mail to the Driver Improvement Office. The request must be received within a period that differs for DC residents and non-DC residents, measured from service of the notice. The guidance says the driver will receive notification of the hearing date by return mail and must present or include a copy of the driver license, the Order of Proposed Revocation, the court disposition and other relevant court documents.

The guidance states that drivers who request a hearing in response to a Notice of Proposed Revocation must request a show cause hearing for the alcohol-related offense. At that hearing, the examiner takes testimony from the arresting officer about the circumstances surrounding the charge and also takes testimony from the driver, who can be represented by counsel and present witnesses. At the conclusion, the examiner decides whether to take action against the driver's license or driving privileges, such as ordering a suspension or revocation.

Montana's statute provides that, for a refusal-related suspension or revocation, a person may file a petition challenging it in the district court in the county where the arrest was made, within a period measured from when a peace officer gives notice of the right to a hearing. On the petitioner's request, the court may issue a stay pending the hearing; the statute does not make a stay automatic. The court decides no other issues than whether the officer had a basis for requesting a test and whether the person refused tests the officer designated. The statute grants no state-court appeal for a suspension or revocation under a tribal law or regulation requiring testing.

New Jersey's statute provides that the municipal court determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the arresting officer had probable cause to believe the person drove or was in actual physical control of a vehicle on public highways or quasi-public areas while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a substance the statute lists; whether the person was placed under arrest, if appropriate; and whether the person refused the test on the officer's request. If these elements are not established, no conviction issues.

PennDOT's agency guidance says a sanction may be appealed in the Court of Common Pleas (Civil Division) in the county of residence, within a period running from the mailing date of the notice.

Missouri's statute provides that the department must promptly notify the person of its decision, including the reasons for it. That notice advises that the decision becomes final within a stated period from the date the notice was mailed unless the person challenges it by filing an appeal in the circuit court in the county where the arrest occurred. The statute separately provides that unless the person files an appeal for judicial review under a cross-referenced section within a stated period after being notified, the department's decision is final.

Michigan's statute provides that if a person who requested a refusal hearing does not prevail, the secretary of state imposes the license sanctions the statute lists, with separate provisions for a vehicle other than a commercial motor vehicle and for a commercial motor vehicle. The person may file a petition in the circuit court of the county in which the arrest was made to review the suspension or denial under a cross-referenced section. If the person prevails, the peace officer who filed the report may, with the consent of the prosecuting attorney, file a petition in that circuit court to review the hearing officer's determination. On notification of a petition for judicial review, the hearing officer transmits the original or a certified copy of the official record to the court.

Michigan's statutes tie a consequence directly to a missed request. When a person refuses a chemical test, the peace officer must immediately notify the person in writing that the person may request a hearing within a period measured from the date of the notice. The notice must specifically state that failure to request a hearing within that period will result in the suspension of the person's license or permit to drive. Michigan's statute then provides that if a person who refused does not request a hearing in time, the secretary of state imposes license sanctions, with separate rules for a vehicle other than a commercial motor vehicle, for a commercial motor vehicle, and for repeat refusals.

Idaho's statute addresses timing in a different way: if the hearing officer extends the hearing date for good cause shown, the extension does not operate as a stay of the suspension.

The companion guide on a missed license-hearing request covers what needs review after a request period has passed, and each state's license-suspension page holds state-specific information for these examples.

Deadlines, limits and penalty ranges are set by each state’s statutes, so this page does not state them. Each state page shows them with the official source and the date they were verified — or says plainly that a figure has not been confirmed yet.