Mississippi DUI Defense and DPS Administrative License Suspension Hearing Package

MISSISSIPPI DUI DEFENSE AND DPS ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE SUSPENSION HEARING PACKAGE

CRITICAL DEADLINE NOTICE

Mississippi license suspensions for DUI and refusal start TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS from the date of the court order. Any appeal of a municipal or justice court DUI judgment must be filed within THIRTY (30) DAYS of conviction (Notice of Appeal filed with DPS). To obtain an Interlock-Restricted License in lieu of suspension, the court must enter an order. Act immediately to preserve all rights.

PART 1 — CASE INTAKE AND TIMELINE

Client Information

Arrest Information

Chemical Test

Prior Record (5-Year Lookback)

☐ No prior DUI within 5 years — First offense (misdemeanor)
☐ One prior within 5 yrs — Second offense (misdemeanor; 5 days – 1 yr)
☐ Two priors within 5 yrs — Third offense (felony, 1–5 yrs)
☐ Three priors lifetime — Fourth offense (felony, 2–10 yrs)

PART 2 — MISSISSIPPI DUI STATUTORY SUMMARY

§ 63-11-30 — Elements

It is unlawful to drive or operate a vehicle while:

• (a) Under the influence of intoxicating liquor;
• (b) Under the influence of any substance impairing the ability to operate;
• (c) Under the influence of any drug or controlled substance unlawful to possess; OR
• (d) Having an alcohol concentration of:
• (i) 0.08% or more (adult);
• (ii) 0.02% or more (underage);
• (iii) 0.04% or more (commercial driver).

Penalty Tiers (§ 63-11-30)

Enhanced .15 BAC

For BAC ≥ .15, the court must impose enhanced penalties under § 63-11-30(2). MASEP completion is required; Interlock-Restricted License periods are typically extended.

Implied Consent / Refusal Suspension (§ 63-11-23)

Courts may issue an order for the Interlock-Restricted License in lieu of suspension.

Nonadjudication First Offense (§ 63-11-30(14))

A first DUI offender may be eligible for nonadjudication ONE TIME under any provision authorizing nonadjudication, if:

Upon successful completion, the court withholds adjudication and the offense does not appear on the public record (with limited exceptions for law enforcement).

Interlock-Restricted License (§ 63-11-31)

Available immediately upon court order in lieu of suspension. IID required on every vehicle operated.

PART 3 — IMPLIED CONSENT SUMMARY (§§ 63-11-5, 63-11-21, 63-11-23)

Under Miss. Code § 63-11-5, any person operating a motor vehicle on a public road in Mississippi is deemed to have given consent to a chemical test of breath, blood, or urine when an officer has probable cause to believe the person is DUI.

Required Procedures (§ 63-11-21)

• The test is administered after lawful arrest;
• Breath: MS Crime Laboratory–approved Intoxilyzer 8000, certified operator, 15-minute observation;
• Blood: by qualified medical personnel;
• Urine: as specified by rule.

Refusal (§ 63-11-23)

• 90-day Class R suspension (1st refusal);
• 1-year suspension if prior DUI conviction or nonadjudication;
• Court may order Interlock-Restricted License in lieu of suspension;
• Refusal may be admissible at trial.

Defense Audit

• Was the stop supported by reasonable suspicion?
• Was the arrest supported by probable cause?
• Was the implied-consent advisory properly given?
• Did the operator comply with the 15-minute observation rule before breath testing?
• Was the Intoxilyzer 8000 certified, calibrated, and operated by a certified operator?
• For blood draws: was a warrant obtained, or did a recognized exception apply?

PART 4 — REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING / DPS APPEAL OF SUSPENSION

To: Mississippi Department of Public Safety
Driver Service Bureau — DUI Department
P.O. Box 958
Jackson, MS 39205
Phone: (601) 987-1224

Re: Request for Administrative Review of License Suspension
Driver: [________________________________]
DL No.: [________________________________]
Date of Suspension Notice: [__/__/____]
Type of Suspension: ☐ § 63-11-23 (Refusal) ☐ § 63-11-30 (Conviction) ☐ Other

The above-named licensee, by and through undersigned counsel, REQUESTS AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW of the license action.

Issues / Grounds

☐ Whether the officer had reasonable grounds and probable cause to believe the driver was operating a motor vehicle under the influence;
☐ Whether the licensee was advised of the implied-consent rights;
☐ Whether the licensee refused testing;
☐ Whether the underlying arrest was lawful;
☐ Whether the court has issued an order for an Interlock-Restricted License in lieu of suspension;
☐ Whether the appeal of the underlying conviction was timely filed (within 30 days; see § 63-11-30(2)(a)).

Alternative Relief Requested

☐ Issuance of an Interlock-Restricted License under § 63-11-31 (court order attached);
☐ Stay of suspension pending appeal of conviction (file-stamped Notice of Appeal attached).

Submitted: [__/__/____]
Attorney: [________________________________]
MS Bar No.: [________________________________]
Address / Phone / Email: [________________________________]

PART 5 — DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY (CRIMINAL CASE)

IN THE [MUNICIPAL / JUSTICE / CIRCUIT] COURT OF [______________] COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

Cause No.: [________________________________]
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

Pursuant to Uniform Rule of Circuit and County Court Practice 9.04, Mississippi Rule of Criminal Procedure 17, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), Defendant requests:

A. Stop, Detention, and Arrest

1. Dash-cam, body-worn camera, and station-house video from every officer;
2. CAD logs, dispatch recordings, 911 calls;
3. Arrest report, supplemental reports, field notes;
4. Officer training records (SFST, ARIDE, DRE certifications).

B. Standardized Field Sobriety Tests

5. SFST scoring sheets and conditions of administration;
6. NHTSA SFST certification records.

C. Chemical Testing

7. Intoxilyzer 8000 identification, location, calibration history, and Mississippi Crime Laboratory certification (Miss. Forensics Lab);
8. Breath operator's certification under MFL standards;
9. 15-minute observation log;
10. Subject test record / Intoxilyzer evidence ticket;
11. For blood: chain of custody, kit lot number, preservative records, phlebotomist credentials, analyst credentials, raw chromatograms, SOPs.

D. Implied Consent

12. Implied-consent advisory documentation;
13. Any blood-draw warrant and supporting affidavit;
14. Video/audio of testing.

E. Brady / Giglio

15. All exculpatory evidence;
16. All impeachment material on State witnesses (pending discipline, prior false statements, Brady-list).

Date: [__/__/____]
/s/ [Attorney Name], MS Bar No. [______]

PART 6 — MOTION TO SUPPRESS

IN THE [MUNICIPAL / JUSTICE / CIRCUIT] COURT OF [______________] COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

Cause No.: [________________________________]
MOTION TO SUPPRESS

COMES NOW Defendant, by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and Article 3, §§ 23 and 26 of the Mississippi Constitution, moves to suppress all evidence flowing from the stop, detention, arrest, and chemical testing of Defendant, stating:

I. Lack of Reasonable Suspicion

1. The stated basis for the stop — [________________] — does not establish reasonable, articulable suspicion. Floyd v. City of Crystal Springs, 749 So. 2d 110 (Miss. 1999); Anderson v. State, 864 So. 2d 948 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).

II. Lack of Probable Cause to Arrest

2. The totality of the circumstances does not establish probable cause to believe Defendant violated § 63-11-30.
3. SFSTs were administered out of NHTSA compliance.

III. Implied-Consent Violations

4. The implied-consent advisory under § 63-11-21 was not properly given or was misleading.
5. The 15-minute observation period required by Mississippi Crime Laboratory rule was not observed prior to breath testing. McIlwain v. State, 700 So. 2d 586 (Miss. 1997).

IV. Blood-Draw / Warrant Violations

6. Blood was withdrawn without a warrant and without a recognized exception. Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013); Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016).

V. Breath-Test Foundation

7. The Intoxilyzer 8000 was not certified by the Mississippi Forensics Laboratory at the time of testing;
8. The breath operator was not certified;
9. Test results lack adequate foundation.

VI. Miranda

10. Custodial statements were obtained without proper Miranda warnings.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court suppress all such evidence.

Hearing Requested.

Date: [__/__/____]
/s/ [Attorney Name], MS Bar No. [______]

PART 7 — ORDER / PETITION FOR INTERLOCK-RESTRICTED LICENSE (§ 63-11-31)

IN THE [MUNICIPAL / JUSTICE / CIRCUIT] COURT OF [______________] COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

Cause No.: [________________________________]
PETITION / PROPOSED ORDER FOR INTERLOCK-RESTRICTED LICENSE

Pursuant to Miss. Code § 63-11-31, Defendant petitions the Court to enter an order authorizing the Mississippi Department of Public Safety to issue an Interlock-Restricted License in lieu of suspension under § 63-11-30 or § 63-11-23. In support, Defendant states:

1. Defendant has been ☐ convicted ☐ placed in nonadjudication ☐ found to have refused testing for DUI.
2. Defendant is not a CDL holder. ☐ Confirmed
3. Defendant has installed (or will install within [____] days) a functioning Ignition Interlock Device on every vehicle Defendant operates, supplied by an approved vendor: [____________].
4. Defendant agrees to maintain the IID for the period required by statute and DPS rule.
5. Defendant has paid (or will pay) all required fees.

PROPOSED ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Department of Public Safety shall issue an Interlock-Restricted License to Defendant for [____] months, effective [__/__/____], subject to the conditions of § 63-11-31 and DPS rules.

SO ORDERED this _____ day of ____________, 20___.

____________________________
JUDGE

PART 8 — PLEA / NONADJUDICATION NEGOTIATION WORKSHEET

A. Charge Analysis

B. State's Initial Offer

C. Nonadjudication Eligibility Checklist (§ 63-11-30(14))

If all boxes checked → Recommend pursuing nonadjudication.

D. Defense Mitigation

E. Collateral Consequences

F. Client Acknowledgment

I have reviewed the offer and the nonadjudication option with my attorney.

☐ Accept ☐ Pursue nonadjudication ☐ Counter at: [______] ☐ Reject and proceed

Client: _________________ Date: [__/__/____]
Attorney: _______________ Date: [__/__/____]

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Miss. Code Title 63, Chapter 11 (Implied Consent Law)
• Miss. Code § 63-11-30(14) (Nonadjudication)
• Miss. Code § 63-11-39 (Expungement of DUI 1st Offense)
• MS DPS Driver Service Bureau — DUI Department: https://www.driverservicebureau.dps.ms.gov/DriverRecords/DUI_Department
• Mississippi Forensics Laboratory — Breath Testing Standards
• McIlwain v. State, 700 So. 2d 586 (Miss. 1997)
• Floyd v. City of Crystal Springs, 749 So. 2d 110 (Miss. 1999)
• Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013)
• Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016)
• NHTSA DWI Detection & SFST Manual (current ed.)

DISCLAIMER: This template is a starting framework, not legal advice. Verify current Mississippi law before filing. Counsel must tailor every filing to the specific facts.