Call Us For Free Consultation



DWI Administrative Hearings after DWI Arrests In Louisiana

Law Office of Ernest J. Bauer, Jr. LLC > Crime lawyer  > DWI Administrative Hearings after DWI Arrests In Louisiana

DWI Administrative Hearings after DWI Arrests In Louisiana

DWI Administrative Hearings after DWI Arrests In Louisiana

How can a motorist win a DWI administrative hearing in Louisiana?

The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections will suspend a motorist’s driving privileges if he or she is arrested for Driving While Intoxicated in Louisiana (DWI). This civil procedure is separate from the DWI case filed by the prosecutor (usually the District Attorney or City Attorney). So, Louisiana has two statutory programs regarding the suspension or revocation of driving privileges for DWI-related arrests. The DPSC has instituted a civil and administrative licensing process under the Implied Consent Laws of Louisiana (La. R.S. R.S. 32:661 et. seq.) to determine if a person’s driving privileges need to be revoked.

The prosecuting attorney may also initiate a criminal investigation to determine if a crime was committed. Each scheme is independent and will not affect the other. Louisiana’s right to drive is a privilege that the State grants and not a right. It is a privilege, and Louisiana motorists implicitly consent to chemical testing under the conditions by La. R.S. R.S. 32:667. If the conditions are met, refusal to submit the test results will result in the mandatory suspension of one’s license.

The officer will seize the motorist’s license after a DWI arrest is made in Louisiana and issue a temporary permit to the motorist on a form approved by the DPSC. The document grants the motorist the right of operation in Louisiana for up to 30 days after the date of arrest. The temporary driver’s license serves to notify the arrestedee that they have thirty days to request an administrative hearing from the DPSC.

La. R.S. R.S. 32:668 was created to allow an individual arrested for DWI to have an administrative review of the proposed suspension of license. This is based on the Department of Public Safety and Corrections records and other evidence. La. R.S. 32:668. The hearing will only be conducted if the police officer has reasonable grounds to suspect the person driving a motor car while under alcohol. La. R.S. 32:668.

The motorists’ driver’s licenses will be suspended approximately 90% of the time after the administrative hearing. The motorists who win the administrative hearing can drive only 10% of the time. The motorist convicted of DWI who participates in an administrative hearing will receive their licenses back ten percent of the time.



ernest bauer

Here are some reasons a Louisiana motorist might be granted an administrative hearing to get their driver’s license back. These are some of the reasons:

Trafficking in people, particularly children, is primarily a covert crime. The United Nations Office on Crime and Drugs has developed a number of key indicators to help you identify potential endangerment so you can inform law enforcement as quickly as possible. These indicators are:

  1. The officer had no reasonable grounds to suspect that the driver was impaired by alcohol.
  2. The motorist was not arrested by the law enforcement officer.
  3. The motorist was not informed by the law enforcement officer about their rights under the statutes.
  4. The law enforcement officer failed to properly administer a DWI-approved chemical test  as required by law.
  5. The motorist refused to submit to a chemical test for DWI.
  6. Because the motorist was required to submit to chemical testing, a warrant was issued to collect the blood sample.
  7. The officer did not specify why they were in contact with the motorist.
  8. The police failed to prove that the DWI checkpoint was in compliance with Louisiana law, resulting in an illegal stop
  9. The arrest report didn’t indicate whether the water vessel was operated by a motor.
  10. The Body/Dashcam footage differed from the officer’s statement that the motorist was swaying and had slurred words.
  11. The motorist was not allowed to be stopped because the left tires were crossing the center line. However, there were cars parked on both sides of road making it possible to drive in the middle of the road.
  12. Although the officer claimed that the motorist had refused to take a chemical test, the motorist took a urine test.
  13. The DPSC didn’t present objective facts that the motorist had used improper lane changes.
  14. The officer did not observe the motorist for the required 15-minute observation period before the chemical test.
  15. There are inconsistencies within the DWI Packet regarding whether the motorist submitted or refused to the HGN Test.
  16. There are inconsistencies within the DWI Packet regarding whether or not the motorist submits to a chemical test.
  17. There were inconsistencies within the DWI Packet, which raised questions about whether motorists were informed of their rights.
  18. The DPSC didn’t prove that the trooper had followed the Department’s regulations for administering the test. That is, the trooper did not follow the Intoxilyzer 9000 Check List.
  19. There was no record of any arrests on the DWI paperwork.
  20. The Spanish-speaking motorist could not understand the form because the officer read it in English.
  21. The criminal charges against the motorist were dropped, so there is no legal basis to suspend the motorist’s driver’s license.
  22. The DPSC didn’t provide any evidence as to why two different Official Notification of Withdrawal Of Driving Privileges forms existed.
  23. The DWI Packet did not contain any facts that could have been used to determine by whom the motorist was seen driving or how the officer suspected that the motorist was driving a motor vehicle.
  24. The DPSC did not establish that the person drawing the blood of the motorist was a doctor, physician assistant or registered nurse.
  25. The officer didn’t read to the motorist holding a Class B commercial driving license a part of the form that must have been read to Class B commercial driver’s license holders.
  26. Within 30 days of the arrest, the results of the blood test on the motorist were not available.
  27. The motorist refused to submit to a chemical test, as he was physically unable to complete the Intoxilyzer breath tests due to his incoherence. Also, the officer didn’t ask him to submit for chemical testing of his urine or blood.
  28. He was not arrested at the time that he submitted for a chemical intoxication test. Before he submitted for the test, he was given a copy of his rights regarding chemical intoxication tests. (The motorist was subject to chemical testing on the night of his DWI-related accident. However, he wasn’t arrested until three weeks later. );
  29. The trooper provided unclear information to the motorist but did not inform him that his license would likely be revoked if it was refused to submit for a urine test.
  30. Because the motorist had used an Albuterol metered-dose rescue inhaler prior to submitting to a breath sample, the DPSC was unable to prove that her chemical breath test result was above 0.080g%. During breath alcohol analysis, rescue inhalers may cause false-positive readings of blood alcohol. ;
  31. The DPSC didn’t prove that the Louisiana State Police Crime Laboratory had a valid certificate to perform a forensic analysis on the motorist’s blood as required by law.
  32. The times for the encounter, arrest, and reading of the Arrestees Rights Form were not in conflict.
  33. Instead of reading to the motorist orally, the arresting officer summarized the arrestee’s rights.
  34. The DWI administrative hearing was not held for two years after the motorist was arrested.
  35. Before the motorist was asked for the breath testing, the officer failed to give the Arrestee’s Rights Form to him.
  36. A refusal does not mean that a motorist failed to submit enough urine for a test.
  37. The motorist was not operating on a Louisiana public road.

Three attached documents are available for the calendar years 2018 through 2020. They contain the documents produced by the Louisiana Division of Administrative Law. Viewers can click on the attached documents to view the complete decisions made by Administrative Law Judges.

  1. To view the 2018 DWI Administrative Hearings where Motorists Won,
  2. To view the 2019 DWI Administrative Hearings where Motorists Won,
  3. You can review the 2020 DWI Administrative Hearings where Motorists Won, by clicking here.


For a free initial phone consultation with an experienced Louisiana attorney, call me today at 504-610-5645, or fill out the contact form. I return all messages promptly.


1966 N Hwy 190 Suite A
Covington, LA 70433
(504) 610-5645
(844) 272-1106 (fax)

No Comments

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.