Recently, I was able to obtain a “Critical Need to Drive” hardship license on behalf of my client. My client’s license had previously been suspended for a period of one year based on an Under 21 Administrative Per Se (“APS”) hearing.
We requested and argued an APS hearing in this case. At the APS hearing we argued that the California Highway Patrol officers lacked reasonable suspicion and probable cause to stop, detain and arrest our client for the offense. After reviewing the MVARs in the matter, we believed there was a strong argument that the defendant was lawfully driving at the time the officers initiated a traffic enforcement stop. We argued that the client’s driving was lawful pursuant to the holding in United States v. Colin (2002) 314 F.3d 439. Despite the argument that our client’s alleged driving and straddling was minimal and should not constitute reasonable suspicion, the DMV upheld the one-year suspension on our client’s license.
Our client was dependent on his ability to drive to work and school. The suspension of his driving privileges in this case was causing our client significant hardship in maintaining his employment and attending school. Therefore, we decided to apply for a hardship license.
We gathered significant documentation that no other mode of transportation would permit our client to work and attend school. We submitted exhibits attached to the Critical Need to Drive Application (Vehicle Code section 13353.8(a)) that documented that public transportation did not service during the late hours of our client’s school schedule and we showed that private transportation (Uber, Lyft, Taxi) were too expensive.
Initially, our application was denied because the Drivers Safety Action Unit of the DMV did not accept the authenticity of our client’s school schedule. Our client obtained a certified copy of his school schedule from his school and we submitted a supplement to the original application to the DMV.
After review of the supplement, the Drivers Safety Action Unit approved the Critical Need to Drive License and our client will now be able to drive to and from school and work!
The information in this blog post (“post”) is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect the current law in your jurisdiction. No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice from Escovar & Avila, LLP or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader of this post should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in, or accessible through, this Post without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s state, country or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction. The information on this website is a communication and is for informational purposes only. The facts of every case are unique and nothing on this page or on this website should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. The information on this website is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship and viewing of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship. The result portrayed in this advertisement was dependent on the facts of this case. Results will differ if based on different facts.