Indiana OWI Defense and Administrative License Hearing Package

INDIANA OWI DEFENSE AND BMV ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING PACKAGE

Indiana OWI Statutory Snapshot

PART 1 — IMPLIED CONSENT SUMMARY AND CLIENT INTAKE

A. Implied Consent — Plain-Language Summary

Indiana's implied-consent law (IC § 9-30-6-1) deems every operator of a motor vehicle on Indiana roads to have consented to a chemical test when an officer has probable cause to believe the operator committed an OWI offense. Important points:

• A test under IC § 9-30-6 must be administered within three (3) hours after the officer had probable cause to believe the person committed the covered offense (IC § 9-30-6-2(c)).
• A refusal triggers a one-year license suspension (2 years if there is a prior OWI conviction).
• A refusal is ineligible for specialized driving privileges under IC § 9-30-16-1(a)(2). The court may instead use the separate registered-ignition-interlock alternative in IC § 9-30-6-8(d), under which no administrative suspension is imposed while the order remains effective.
• A "chemical test" may be breath, blood, or urine — the officer chooses which to offer.
• IC § 9-30-7 governs serious-bodily-injury and fatal-accident testing. The officer must offer the testing specified by § 9-30-7-3; refusal is addressed separately by § 9-30-7-5 and carries an infraction plus a one-year suspension, or two years with a previous OWI conviction.

B. Client Intake Checklist

☐ Date and time of arrest: [__/__/____] at [__:__ AM/PM]
☐ Time of operation (driving): [__:__ AM/PM]
☐ Time officer had probable cause for the covered offense: [__:__ AM/PM] — start point for IC § 9-30-6-2(c)
☐ Time of chemical test: [__:__ AM/PM]
☐ Was the test administered within 3 hours after probable cause arose? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown
☐ Location of stop: [________________________________]
☐ Arresting officer / agency: [________________________________]
☐ Cause No.: [________________________________]
☐ Court of jurisdiction: [________________________________]
☐ Initial hearing date: [__/__/____]
☐ Chemical test type: ☐ Breath (DataMaster/Intox EC/IR II) ☐ Blood ☐ Urine ☐ Refused
☐ Reported BAC: [____] % (≥ .15 triggers enhancement)
☐ Was implied-consent advisement given? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown
☐ Prior OWI within 7 years? ☐ Yes ☐ No (felony enhancement under IC § 9-30-5-3)
☐ Prior OWI within 10 years (for SDP eligibility analysis)? ☐ Yes ☐ No
☐ CDL holder? ☐ Yes ☐ No
☐ Passenger under 18? ☐ Yes ☐ No; if yes, was driver 21+ and was the alleged offense § 9-30-5-1(b), -1(c), or -2(b)? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown
☐ Indiana residency/credential route: ☐ Current resident ☐ Former resident when suspension occurred ☐ Never an Indiana resident ☐ Held an Indiana credential at the relevant conviction — a person who has never been an Indiana resident is ineligible; current nonresidency alone is not the statutory test
☐ Was operation a fatal or serious-bodily-injury crash invoking IC § 9-30-7? ☐ Yes ☐ No; testing offered: ☐ portable breath ☐ chemical ☐ blood-including chemical test; refused: ☐ Yes ☐ No

PART 2 — DISCOVERY DEMAND

STATE OF INDIANA, [COUNTY] [SUPERIOR / CIRCUIT] COURT [DIVISION]
Cause No.: [________________]

DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY

Pursuant to Ind. Trial R. 26, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Indiana Criminal Rule 21, and the standing discovery order of this Court, Defendant requests:

1. ☐ The probable-cause affidavit, charging information, and arrest report.
2. ☐ All written, oral, or recorded statements of the Defendant.
3. ☐ Dash-camera, body-worn camera, and any in-station/breath-room video recordings.
4. ☐ All field-sobriety test administration records, including HGN clue notation, Walk-and-Turn, One-Leg Stand (NHTSA-compliant scoring).
5. ☐ The DataMaster (or Intox EC/IR II) instrument log: subject test record, RFI scan, last certification by the Indiana Department of Toxicology pursuant to 260 IAC 1.1.
6. ☐ Operator certification for the breath-test instrument operator (Department of Toxicology approval under IC § 9-30-6-5).
7. ☐ Indiana Department of Toxicology blood/urine certification, raw GC/MS data, chain-of-custody, and analyst bench notes.
8. ☐ All maintenance and calibration records for the breath instrument used.
9. ☐ Personnel/disciplinary files of officers as to Brady/Giglio material.
10. ☐ CAD reports, radio logs, and any 9-1-1 audio.
11. ☐ Booking photos, property inventory, and any tow inventory of the vehicle.
12. ☐ Names and contact information of all civilian witnesses.
13. ☐ All physical evidence in the State's possession.
14. ☐ Notice of intended Evidence Rule 404(b) evidence.

Defendant requests continuing supplementation under Ind. Trial R. 26(E).

[ATTORNEY NAME], Atty No. [__________]
[FIRM ADDRESS]
[PHONE] | [EMAIL]
Date: [__/__/____]

PART 3 — MOTION TO SUPPRESS

STATE OF INDIANA, [COUNTY] [SUPERIOR / CIRCUIT] COURT
Cause No.: [________________]

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

Defendant, by counsel, pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-33-5-7, Article I, § 11 of the Indiana Constitution, and the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, moves to suppress and states:

I. Grounds for Suppression — Check All That Apply

☐ A. Unconstitutional stop. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968); Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356 (Ind. 2005). The officer lacked reasonable suspicion of any specific traffic infraction or criminal activity.

☐ B. Lack of probable cause for arrest. State v. Hawkins, 766 N.E.2d 749 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). The officer's observations did not give rise to probable cause to believe Defendant was operating while intoxicated.

☐ C. Violation of the three-hour rule. IC § 9-30-6-2(c). The chemical test was administered more than three hours after the officer had probable cause to believe Defendant committed the covered offense. Evaluate admissibility under IC §§ 9-30-6-2(c) and 9-30-6-15 and current controlling authority.

☐ D. Warrantless blood draw without consent or exigency. Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013); Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016); Garcia v. State, 47 N.E.3d 1196 (Ind. 2016).

☐ E. Non-compliance with Department of Toxicology breath-test protocols. 260 IAC 1.1; IC § 9-30-6-5. Failure to comply with the 20-minute observation, instrument certification, or operator certification renders the test inadmissible. Aldridge v. State, 779 N.E.2d 81 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).

☐ F. Failure to provide statutory implied-consent warning. IC § 9-30-6-7. The officer did not adequately inform Defendant of the consequences of refusal.

☐ G. Pirtle violation. Pirtle v. State, 263 Ind. 16, 323 N.E.2d 634 (1975). Defendant was in custody and not advised of the right to counsel before being asked to consent to a search.

☐ H. Statements obtained in violation of Miranda.

☐ I. Stop unlawfully prolonged. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015).

II. Relief Requested

1. Evidentiary hearing under Ind. Crim. R. 4 and Ind. Trial R. 12;
2. Suppression of all evidence — statements, observations, test results — as fruit of the unlawful conduct;
3. Such other relief as is just.

[ATTORNEY SIGNATURE]
Date: [__/__/____]

Certificate of Service

I certify that a true copy of this motion was served on the [COUNTY] County Prosecuting Attorney on [__/__/____] via [METHOD].

PART 4 — PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW (BMV ADMINISTRATIVE SUSPENSION)

STATE OF INDIANA, [COUNTY] [SUPERIOR / CIRCUIT] COURT
Cause No.: [________________]

PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUSPENSION — IC § 9-30-6-10

Petitioner, [DEFENDANT NAME], by counsel, petitions this Court for prompt judicial review of the administrative suspension imposed by the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles and states:

1. On [__/__/____], Petitioner was arrested for an offense under IC § 9-30-5 in [COUNTY], Indiana.
2. The probable-cause affidavit alleges that Petitioner ☐ failed / ☐ refused the chemical test offered.
3. The Court has imposed (or the BMV has imposed via mailing) an administrative suspension under IC § 9-30-6-9.
4. Pursuant to IC § 9-30-6-10, Petitioner is entitled to a prompt judicial hearing, limited to the issues of:

☐ Whether the officer had probable cause to believe Petitioner operated a vehicle while committing an offense under IC § 9-30-5; and/or
☐ Whether Petitioner refused to submit to the chemical test offered.

5. Petitioner contests the suspension on the following grounds (specify): [________________________________]

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests the Court (a) set a prompt judicial-review hearing, (b) rescind the administrative suspension, and (c) order the BMV to reinstate Petitioner's driving privileges.

[ATTORNEY SIGNATURE]
Date: [__/__/____]

PART 5 — PETITION FOR SPECIALIZED DRIVING PRIVILEGES

STATE OF INDIANA, [COUNTY] [SUPERIOR / CIRCUIT] COURT
Cause No.: [________________]

VERIFIED PETITION FOR SPECIALIZED DRIVING PRIVILEGES — IC § 9-30-16

Petitioner, [DEFENDANT NAME], by counsel, petitions for Specialized Driving Privileges and states:

1. Petitioner information required by IC § 9-30-16-3(b) or -4(b): Age [____]; date of birth [__/__/____]; address [________________________________].
2. Filing route:
   - ☐ Court-ordered or court-imposed suspension — file in each court that ordered or imposed the suspension, in the case that resulted in the order, under IC § 9-30-16-3(b).
   - ☐ BMV administrative suspension not imposed by court order — file in the circuit or superior court selected by IC § 9-30-16-4(d).
3. Petitioner's driving privileges were suspended in Cause/Record No. [________________] under [identify exact suspension authority: ________________________________].
4. Petitioner qualifies under IC § 9-30-16-1(b) because: ☐ Petitioner held the relevant Indiana credential; or ☐ Petitioner was an Indiana resident when the privileges were suspended and satisfies subsection (b)(2). Petitioner has never been an Indiana resident: ☐ Yes ☐ No.
5. Petitioner has checked the ineligibility provisions in IC §§ 9-30-16-1(a) and 9-30-16-2(c), including the separate rule for a chemical-test refusal. If the suspension rests on refusal, this Chapter 16 petition is not the correct route; evaluate the registered-IID alternative under IC § 9-30-6-8(d).
6. Petitioner requests the following court-determined terms:

☐ Employment — Employer: [_____________________]
☐ Education / school: [_____________________]
☐ Childcare transport
☐ Medical appointments / treatment
☐ Court-ordered programs (treatment, probation, MADD VIP)
☐ Caretaking of dependent family member
☐ Religious observance
☐ Other (specify): [_____________________]

7. Proposed restrictions and compliance terms:

8. The requested period is [________________________________]. IC § 9-30-16-3(c) leaves the period to the court; it does not impose a 180-day minimum term.
9. This verified petition states the grounds for relief and relief sought and has been served on both the Bureau of Motor Vehicles and the prosecuting attorney as IC § 9-30-16-3(b)(5) or -4(b)(6) requires.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Court grant specialized driving privileges under the applicable section of IC § 9-30-16 on the terms stated in its order.

VERIFIED under penalties of perjury.

[DEFENDANT SIGNATURE] Date: [__/__/____]

[ATTORNEY SIGNATURE] Date: [__/__/____]

PART 6 — PLEA-DEAL ANALYSIS WORKSHEET

A. Charging and Exposure Snapshot

B. Collateral Consequences

☐ CDL disqualification under federal regulations
☐ Professional licensing (nursing, medical, legal — duty to self-report)
☐ Immigration — DUI generally not CIMT but DUI w/ drugs or aggravating factor may trigger removability under INA § 237(a)(2)(B)
☐ Firearm rights — felony OWI triggers federal disability under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and IC § 35-47-2-1.5
☐ Insurance surcharge / SR-22 for 3 years
☐ Canada admissibility issue (IRPA § 36)

C. Negotiation Targets

D. Offer Log

E. Client Authorization

I, [DEFENDANT NAME], have reviewed the above with counsel. I authorize:
☐ Acceptance of the [__/__/____] offer.
☐ Counter-offer of [____________].
☐ Rejection and trial.

Defendant Signature: [____________________________] Date: [__/__/____]
Attorney Signature: [____________________________] Date: [__/__/____]

Sources and References

• Ind. Code §§ 9-30-5, 9-30-6, 9-30-7, 9-30-16
• 260 IAC 1.1 (Indiana Department of Toxicology breath-test rules)
• Ind. Trial R. 26; Ind. Crim. R. 4
• Indiana Office of Court Services, Driving Privileges publication (Updated 1/1/2026)
• Pirtle v. State, 263 Ind. 16, 323 N.E.2d 634 (1975)
• Garcia v. State, 47 N.E.3d 1196 (Ind. 2016)
• Hatcher v. State, 762 N.E.2d 189 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)
• Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013); Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016)

Disclaimer: This package is a framework only. Indiana OWI law involves rapidly-evolving statutory and case law and county-specific local practice. Counsel must independently verify all citations and procedural deadlines before filing.