Alabama DUI Defense + ALEA Administrative License Suspension Hearing Package

ALABAMA DUI DEFENSE AND ALEA ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE SUSPENSION (ALS) HEARING PACKAGE

PART 1 — CASE SUMMARY AND DEADLINE WORKSHEET

Critical Alabama Deadlines

• 10 days from arrest to file a written request for ALS hearing with ALEA Driver License Division (otherwise suspension auto-imposes on day 46).
• A timely hearing request stays suspension until the hearing is held and decided.
• Petition for judicial review of adverse ALS decision: 30 days from final order (Ala. Code § 41-22-20).

PART 2 — ALABAMA DUI PENALTY GRID (§ 32-5A-191 / IID under ALEA)

1st Conviction

Subsequent Convictions

Mandatory IID factors (apply even on 1st offense, regardless of BAC): refusal of chemical test; passenger under 14; crash w/ another person injured; BAC ≥ 0.15.

Class A misdemeanor to drive a vehicle without the required IID installed (§ 32-5A-191(o), -191.4).

PART 3 — REQUEST FOR ALEA ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING

TO: Alabama Law Enforcement Agency, Driver License Division — Administrative Hearings Section, P.O. Box 1471, Montgomery, AL 36102-1471
RE: Request for Administrative License Suspension Hearing
FROM: [Client], by counsel

Pursuant to Ala. Code §§ 32-5A-304 and 32-5A-305 and Ala. Admin. Code r. 760-X-20, the undersigned hereby requests an administrative hearing on the proposed suspension of driving privileges resulting from the arrest of [__/__/____].

Issues Raised (Ala. Code § 32-5A-305)

1. ☐ Whether the law enforcement officer had reasonable grounds to believe the person was driving in violation of § 32-5A-191.
2. ☐ Whether the person was placed under arrest.
3. ☐ Whether the person refused to submit to the test upon request, or submitted to a test indicating prohibited blood-alcohol concentration.
4. ☐ Whether the chemical test was administered in compliance with Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences (ADFS) approved methods (§ 32-5A-194).
5. ☐ Whether the breath-test operator held current ADFS certification.
6. ☐ Whether the implied-consent warnings were read and a written copy provided.

The undersigned further requests issuance of subpoenas for the arresting officer, breath-test operator, and ADFS records custodian.

Signed: [_________________________________] Date: [__/__/____]

PART 4 — DISCOVERY DEMAND (ALA. R. CRIM. P. 16)

IN THE [DISTRICT/MUNICIPAL/CIRCUIT] COURT OF [____________] COUNTY, ALABAMA

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

Pursuant to Ala. R. Crim. P. 16, Brady v. Maryland, Ex parte Monk, 557 So. 2d 832 (Ala. 1989), and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, Defendant moves the Court to order the State to produce:

1. ☐ All police reports, supplemental reports, accident reports (AR-50), and CAD logs.
2. ☐ All in-car video, body-worn camera, and station/booking video, including audio.
3. ☐ Draeger Alcotest 9510 maintenance log, calibration records (180 days), simulator solution certifications, and instrument certification under ADFS Rules.
4. ☐ ADFS operator certification of breath-test operator and instrument supervisor.
5. ☐ Implied-consent form, signed Miranda waiver (if any), and § 32-5A-302 advisement.
6. ☐ Blood-kit chain-of-custody, ADFS Forensic Lab worksheets, chromatograms, and qualifications.
7. ☐ SFST/HGN training certifications (NHTSA), instructor manuals consulted, and field notes.
8. ☐ Any 911 call audio and witness statements.
9. ☐ All Brady / Giglio material on each State witness.
10. ☐ Witness list and prior statements; expert reports under Rule 16.1(d).

Dated: [__/__/____]
[ATTORNEY SIGNATURE BLOCK]

PART 5 — MOTION TO SUPPRESS

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

Defendant moves the Court for an order suppressing the following evidence:

I. Stop and Detention (Fourth Amendment)

1. The arresting officer lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to initiate the stop (State v. Otwell, 733 So. 2d 950 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)).
2. The detention was unlawfully prolonged.

II. Arrest

3. Probable cause for arrest was lacking; SFSTs were administered in violation of NHTSA standards (improper surface, lighting, instructions, or scoring).
4. Officer relied on unreliable PBT (preliminary breath test).

III. Implied Consent and Chemical Test

5. Defendant was not properly advised under § 32-5A-302 prior to testing (in writing).
6. The 20-minute observation period required by ADFS Rule 370-1-1-.01 was breached.
7. The Draeger Alcotest 9510 was not properly calibrated; instrument was out of certification; simulator solution out of tolerance.
8. Operator was not currently certified at the time of test (§ 32-5A-194).

IV. Blood Draw

9. Warrantless blood draw violates the Fourth Amendment (Missouri v. McNeely; Birchfield v. North Dakota; Mitchell v. Wisconsin); no valid consent, exigency, or warrant.

V. Statements

10. Custodial statements were obtained without Miranda warnings and must be suppressed.

Dated: [__/__/____]
[ATTORNEY SIGNATURE BLOCK]

PART 6 — IGNITION INTERLOCK-RESTRICTED LICENSE / EARLY REINSTATEMENT PETITION

TO: Alabama Law Enforcement Agency — Driver License Division

The applicant represents continuous compliance with IID monitoring, monthly calibrations, and prohibition against tampering or circumvention (Ala. Code § 32-5A-191.4). Any violation extends the IID term by six (6) months.

Signed: [_________________________________] Date: [__/__/____]

PART 7 — PLEA-DEAL WORKSHEET

Client acknowledgment: [_________________________________] Date: [__/__/____]

PART 8 — IMPLIED CONSENT SUMMARY (ALABAMA)

PART 9 — SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Ala. Code § 32-5A-191 (effective July 1, 2023) — DUI penalties.
• Ala. Code §§ 32-5A-300 to -315 — Chemical Test for Intoxication Act / ALS.
• Ala. Code § 32-5A-191.4 — IID tampering / Class A misdemeanor.
• Ala. Admin. Code r. 760-X-20 — ALEA administrative hearings.
• ALEA Ignition Interlock Laws: https://www.alea.gov/dps/driver-license/license-and-id-cards/ignition-interlock-laws
• Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences (ADFS) Rules (chapter 370-1-1).
• Ex parte Monk, 557 So. 2d 832 (Ala. 1989).
• Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013); Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016); Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 588 U.S. 840 (2019).

End of Alabama DUI Defense + ALEA ALS Hearing Package.