Your Second Amendment rights and the Brady Act requirements

The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 was enhanced in 1993 by the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, commonly known as the Brady Act. The Brady Act requires Federal Firearms Licensees (firearms dealers) to request background checks on prospective firearms transferees (firearms purchasers). Theses background checks are conducted through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The NICS is a national system that checks available records in three national databases, which are the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), the Interstate Identification Index (III) and the NICS Index. The NICS Index contains information provided by local, state, tribal and federal agencies of persons prohibited from receiving firearms under federal or state law.

Section 922 of the Gun Control Act strictly prohibits certain persons from shipping, transporting or receiving any firearm in interstate commerce or foreign commerce or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:

1) Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

2) Is a fugitive from justice.

3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.

4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution.

5) Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States. Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or who has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa.

6) Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.

7) Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship.

8) Is subject to a court order that restrains that person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner.

9) Has been convicted in any court of a crime of misdemeanor domestic violence.

10) Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

If the NICS Index returns a deny message, this indicates that the subject of a Brady Act background check has been matched with a similar name and/or similar descriptive information of a record containing a state law prohibition or any of the above listed federal prohibitions. A delay message indicates the subject has been matched with a record potentially containing state or federal prohibitive criteria.

Can my DUI be Dismissed if the Arresting Officer did not Read me my Miranda Rights?

One of the more frequently asked questions by clients who are arrested for DUI / DWAI or DUID (driving under the influence of drugs) is whether their case can be dismissed because the arresting officer did not read them their Miranda warning. Although a majority of people believe this to be our right, there is a common misconception about a police officer’s failure to read the Miranda warning and that the failure to do so is grounds or having the case dismissed. This is especially true as it applies to an arrest for DUI.

Because of the prevalence of police and legal drama television shows, most everyone knows the term “Miranda rights.” What they do not know is how these rights came about and how they are applied to statements of any kind made by a person accused of a crime. The Miranda warning was born from the landmark decision in the United States Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Ernesto Miranda was arrested by the Phoenix Police Department, based upon circumstantial evidence, which linked him to the kidnaping and rape of a young woman. Miranda confessed his crimes to the police after a lengthy interrogation, during which he was never advised of his Fifth Amendment right to an attorney during questioning or his right to remain silent and not make any self-incrimination statements.

As a result of Miranda v. Arizona, a formal Miranda warning must be given by the police to any criminal suspect in police custody before they are interrogated and asked any questions about what took place during the crime. Upon being advised of the Miranda warning, the suspect must affirmatively state that they understand their rights as read to them before any questions can be asked. If the suspect states that they do not wish to answer any questions and wish to remain silent or if they ask to speak with an attorney before questioning, then it is their right not to self-incriminate themselves and the all questioning must stop.

Miranda does not apply to preliminary question of a suspect prior to being arrested and any incriminating statements that are blurted out during a preliminary investigation can be used against a suspect in court. This is most typical in a DUI traffic stop where preliminary questioning is allowed and almost always routine. Police officers are allowed to ask a suspect for routine information such as name, date of birth, driver license, insurance and registration without advising him or her of their Miranda rights. Police are trained to ask incrimination questions such as “Have you been drinking?” or “How much have you had to drink tonight?” when asking for routine information and prior to arresting the suspect. However, any investigational questioning done by an officer in efforts detect or confirm the suspicion of intoxication does not have to be answered. The same rules apply to field sobriety testing; they are a search under Colorado law and an individual has the right to decline performing those tests.

Unfortunately, in most DUI cases, there is no requirement that a Miranda warning be given to a suspect, and if it is not read, the case is not automatically dismissed. As long as questions are asked before a formal arrest or custodial interrogation is made, then any statement made by a suspect can be used against him or her. In the majority of cases, Miranda only applies after the suspect is arrested and is subject to interrogation by the police.
Continue reading

Posted in DUI

The Interstate Driver’s License Compact and the National Driver Register

The Driver’s License Compact (DLC), commonly referred to as the Interstate Driver’s License Compact, is an agreement between each of the 45 member states and the District of Columbia to exchange and report information concerning serious traffic violations, such as a DUI, DWAI, reckless driving and others and suspensions of non-resident violators back to their home state.  The violator’s home state will in turn treat the offense as if it had been committed by the violator in their home state and apply any home state laws to the out-of-state offense.  For example, if a driver were to be arrested and convicted in Colorado for a DUI, but the driver was a resident of California and possessed a California driver’s license at the time of arrest, Colorado would report the DUI conviction to California and California would treat the DUI conviction as if it happened in California.  There are currently five states that are not members of the DLC; those states are Wisconsin, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Michigan and Georgia.

Originally, the DLC only reported serious traffic offenses such as a DUI, however now almost all moving violations, such as speeding, weaving and others are reported back to the driver’s home state.  Meaning, if a Colorado driver receives a speeding ticket in Arizona, the state of Arizona will report the violation and possibly the points back to the driver’s home state of Colorado.

Not every driving offense will transfer back to the driver’s home state.  Under the DLC, in order for the driver’s home state to penalize him or her for an out-of-state violation, the driver’s home state must have the same statute for the offense for which the driver was charged.  For example, not every state has a careless driving offense.  If an out-of-state driver is convicted of careless driving in Colorado and the driver’s home state does not have a statute for careless driving, then no action will be taken by the driver’s home state.

The National Driver Register (NDR) is a computerized national database used by states to report information on drivers who have had their driving privileges suspended or revoked or who have been convicted of serious traffic offenses such as a DUI.  When a person goes to apply for a new state driver’s license or to renew a driver’s license in their home state, the state DMV will check to see if that person is on the National Driver Register. If that person is listed on the NDR, then the licensing state is required to investigate the report made by the state adding the person’s name to the NDR.  Depending on the report and investigation, the licensing state may refuse to issue a license or renew the license.  The NDR was designed to prevent a person who’s driver’s license is suspended or revoked in one state from getting a license in another state.  It also makes it very difficult for a person to obtain multiple driver’s licenses.

Posted in DUI

New Changes to Colorado’s DUI Laws

Colorado’s Legislature has made several new and important changes to the drinking and driving laws as they related to the Colorado Department of Motor Vehicles’ (DMV) authority to suspend a motorist’s license for a DUI or DWAI.  These new laws go into effect on January 01, 2014.  If a driver is charged with Driving under the Influence (DUI) or Driving while Ability Impaired (DWAI), the new changes to the law may allow a motorist to get their driving privileges reinstated earlier in some case.  The new changes are highlighted below:

1.  New changes for a refusal to cooperate or to take a blood or breath test allow for early reinstatement of driving privileges for a 1st offense refusal.  Prior to January 01, 2014, if a driver is arrested for DUI and refuses to take a breath or a blood test after being advised of Colorado’s Express Consent Law, that driver will lose his or her license for a period of 1 year. The driver will not be allowed to obtain a probationary license and will not get early reinstatement.  Under the new law, a driver can now reinstate their driver’s license with a probationary license and the interlock ignition system after 2 months.  Early reinstatement of driving privileges will require the driver to have an ignition interlock installed in their vehicle for 2 years. 

2.  The new law now lowers the blood alcohol content (BAC) level for a Persistent Drunk Driver (PDD) from 0.170 to 0.150.  Prior to January 01, 2014, a driver who takes a blood or breath test that results in a BAC of 0.170 or greater for a 1st offense is required to have a restricted license with the ignition interlock for a period of 2 years after reinstatement.  On or after January 01, 2014, the Persistent Drunk Driver threshold is now reduced to 0.150 or greater, requiring a restricted license with the ignition interlock for 2 years after reinstatement.

3.  The new law also changes the early reinstatement period for a second or subsequent per se alcohol revocation for a BAC of 0.08 or greater.  Prior to January 01, 2014 a second or subsequent per se revocation for a BAC of 0.08 or greater requires a 1 year license revocation with no driving.  The driver is only eligible for early reinstatement with the ignition interlock after 1 year of no driving.  After January 01, 2014, a driver with a second or subsequent per se revocation may early reinstate with an ignition interlock restricted license after 1 month of no driving.    

4.  After January 01, 2014 a driver may challenge legality of the stop at a DMV license revocation hearing.  Currently, the reason for the stop cannot be challenged at a DMV express consent hearing.  If the arresting officer had no lawful reason to contact the driver, then all the subsequent evidence illegally obtained must be suppressed. 

Posted in DUI

What You Need to Know about Colorado’s New Law on Driving under the Influence of Marijuana

Colorado has recently added a new section to its DUI laws that sets legal limits on marijuana levels in the bloodstream.  Under the new DUI laws, which took effect in May of 2013, a driver is presumed to be under the influence of marijuana, if at the time of driving the driver’s blood contained 5 nanograms or more of active THC (delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol) per milliliter of blood.

There appears to be no readily accepted consensus on the exact amount of marijuana a driver must consume before he or she is considered to be under the influence.  This is due impart to the fact that frequent smokers can build up a tolerance to THC and THC is absorbed differently into the blood stream than alcohol.  Some critiques of Colorado’s new law argue that the 5 nanogram threshold is too low because medical marijuana users always have some level of THC in their blood. Remember, a nanogram is one billionth of a gram.

Experimental studies evaluating the impact of the active THC contained in marijuana on driving skills, demonstrates that marijuana use can impair the physical and mental skills need to operate a motor vehicle.  THC is rapidly absorbed into the blood stream after smoking and impairment levels are at their highest during the acute phase, which last up to an hour, after which the level of impairment begins to subside rapidly.  Recent scientific and medical studies have indicated that driver’s with active THC concentrations in the whole blood of less than 5 nanograms per milliliter (5ng/mL) have no greater crash risk than that of drug free drivers.  The risk of a crash related accident begins to exceed that of a sober driver when active THC concentration levels reach 5 – 10 ng/mL in the whole blood.  See, Grotenhermen et al. Developing Science-Based Per Se Limits for Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis: Findings and Recommendations by an Expert Panel. Sept. 2005.

There have been several studies that have compared the degree of impairment caused by marijuana with the impairment cause by alcohol.  Comparison of the level of impairment of both the physical and mental driving skills need to operate a vehicle indicate that a THC concentration of about 4ng/mL in blood serum, from either smoking or ingesting marijuana, is associated with the same overall level of impairment as a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.04.  Thus, the level of impairment produced by a BAC of 0.08 corresponds similarly to a THC concentration of 9-10 ng/mL in blood serum.  See, Grotenhermen et al. Developing Science-Based Per Se Limits for Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis: Findings and Recommendations by an Expert Panel. Sept. 2005.

Posted in DUI

DUI / DWAI Myths and Facts

Myth: It is better to drink wine and or beer because they are weaker than hard liquor and contain less alcohol.

Fact: 12 ounces of beer, 5 ounces of wine and 1 ¼ ounces (shot) of liquor (80 proof) contain the same amount of alcohol.

Myth: A person can sober up and reduce his or her BAC quicker by drinking coffee and water and taking a cold shower.

Fact: While the caffeine in coffee and a cold shower may make a person feel more awake, time is the only way for a person to sober up and for the BAC to drop.  The liver metabolizes the alcohol in one’s body and coverts it into a harmless substance before it is eliminated from the body. The metabolic process is the only way for a person to reduce his or her BAC and sober up.

Myth: Mouthwash or breath freshener spray will help you beat a DUI.

Fact: Using mouthwash or a breath freshener spray before you take any type of breath test is a bad idea.  Mouthwash and breath freshener spray contain a significant amount of alcohol, which may become trapped in dentures pockets or cavity pockets in the mouth resulting in an artificially elevated breath test result.

Myth: The odor of alcohol on a person’s breath is an accurate and reliable indicator of intoxication.

Fact: Alcohol is actually odorless.  It is the congeners (additives) that give an alcoholic beverage its odor and this is what most people perceive as the odor of alcohol on a person’s breath. Non-alcoholic beer such as O’Doul’s will produce the same smell on a person’s breath as an alcoholic beer.  Scientific research has shown that there is no significant correlation between the strength of the odor of alcohol on a person’s breath and his or her blood alcohol concentration. In a controlled scientific experiment using experienced law enforcement officers, the results showed the BAC estimates made by the officers based on odor of alcohol alone were no more accurate than a random guess.  See, Moscowitz, H., Burns, M. and Ferguson, S. Police Officers’ Detection of Breath Odors from Ingestion, Accident Analysis and prevention, 1999 (May), 31 (3), 175 180.

Myth: Sucking on a penny or using chewing tobacco can help you beat a breath test.

Fact: There is no published scientific evidence whatsoever that indicates sucking on a penny or copper wire or chewing tobacco have any effect on the results of an alcohol breath testing machine.

Myth: The standard field sobriety tests given by police are based on scientific principle and can accurately identify drunk drivers.

Fact: The three standard field sobriety tests which are the HGN test, the Walk and Turn test and the One leg Stand test were determined to be 77%, 65% and 68% reliable when performed under laboratory conditions.  This means that the study took place indoors on a flat, level, dry, debris free surface and in shoes where the heels were less than two inches.  The volunteers who participated in the study were under 65 years of age and in good health with no back, leg, knee, ankle, eye, inner ear or balance conditions or other medical conditions which may affect a person’s performance on theses tests.  The majority of the standard field sobriety tests are given on the side of a highway at night with strobe lights flashing, no straight line to walk, sometimes in the shivering cold, and sometimes in ice or snow which means these ideal conditions are almost never met.  Further, Police Officers rarely perform these tests as they are trained.

Myth:  The average person can consume three to four drinks in one hour and not exceed the legal BAC limit.

Fact:  The alcohol content in a person’s blood will continue to rise 1 ½ to 3 hours after drinking, which means even though a person may have stopped drinking and the level of impairment may be declining, the BAC level is still increasing.  The average man who has four to five drinks in an hour will most likely exceed the legal BAC limit for an extended period of time after they have stopped drinking. The same is true for the average woman who has three to four drinks in one hour.

Myth: Blood Alcohol Content is a reliable indicator of driving impairment.

Fact:  A person’s tolerance for alcohol will increase over time with consistent alcohol consumption. A person who consumes alcohol on a regular basis will most likely be less impaired at a given BAC than someone who rarely drinks.

Myth:  Breath alcohol testing machines (Breathalyzers) accurately measure the concentration of alcohol in a person’s blood.

Fact:  A breathalyzer machine does not actually measure the blood alcohol content in a person’s blood. This can only be accomplished with a blood test. Breathalyzers attempt to measure the alcohol vapor in the breath in order to estimate the concentration of alcohol in the blood.  A Breathalyzer machine will detect any chemical compound that contains the methyl group in its molecular structure. There are thousands of such compounds such as gasoline, glue, acetone, asthma inhalers, paint, paint remover, celluloid, cleaning fluids, and many more.  In order to estimate blood alcohol concentration levels, these breath alcohol machines assume as constants certain ratios within the human body that actually vary widely from person to person and within the same person over time. For example, many breath alcohol testing machines assume a 2,100-to-1 ratio in converting alcohol in the breath to estimates of alcohol in the blood. However, this ratio varies from 1,900 to 2,400 among people and also within a person over time. Also, most breath alcohol testing machines assume a hematocrit (blood cells as a percent of blood volume) of 47%. However, hematocrit values range from 42 to 49% in men and from 37 to 47% in women.  As a result, a person with a lower hematocrit level will have an erroneously high BAC level.

Posted in DUI

Colorado has Upgraded to the Intoxilyzer 9000 for Evidential Breath Testing in DUI and DWAI Cases.

The state of Colorado has recently upgraded its evidential breath testing program from the Intoxilyzer 5000EN to the Intoxilyzer 9000.  If you are arrested for suspicion of DUI in Colorado and choose a breath test, you will be taking that test on the Intoxilyzer 9000.

The Intoxilyzer 9000 (I-9000) replaces the old Intoxilyzer 5000EN which has been in service in the Colorado for many years.  Both the Intoxilyzer 9000 and the 5000EN are manufactured by CMI and both machines utilize an infrared spectroscopic technique to identify and quantify alcohol in the breath and are based on the same fundamental scientific principles of operation.

Where the machines differ is in size, function and portability.  The I-9000 is much smaller than its predecessor, weighing only 10 pounds.  It is designed for portability and can operate off of 110V AC or 12V DC power.  It is also equipped to use a dry gas calibration simulator or a wet bath calibration simulator.  The I-9000 is capable storing all the test information and downloading it to a centralized server and the entire test, control and calibration data can be reprinted directly from the machine.  The I-9000 also graphically displays the subject’s breath flow curve and pressure and BrAC curves throughout the breath test.  This allows the operator to visually see if the subject is providing a proper breath sample.

The I-9000 also claims to be more accurate than the 5000EN and to have resolved many of the problems associated with the 5000EN.  However the manufacture, CMI, has refused to release the source code software for the I-9000 and there has been no opportunity for an independent expert to thoroughly test and scrutinize the machine.

Posted in DUI

What You Need To Know About DUI Sobriety Checkpoints

DUI sobriety checkpoints or roadblocks are become more and more popular in Colorado as a way for police to make DUI arrests, especially during weekends and holidays.  You may have seen road signs that read “The Heat is On” or “100 Days of Heat”.  This is a campaign used by the Colorado State Highway Patrol throughout the year and in conjunction with the local law enforcement and CDOT to target drunk drivers.  The majority of the enforcement is conducted during the holidays and weekends and usually involves DUI sobriety checkpoint or roadblocks.

The United States Supreme Court has deemed DUI checkpoints to be a legal method for screening drivers for possible signs of intoxication. The Supreme Court also said, however, that strict procedural guidelines must be followed by the police in order to make the roadblock legal. If the police fail to operate the DUI sobriety checkpoint in accordance with the legal standards set forth by the Supreme Court in the case of Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), any DUI arrests made while conducting an illegal DUI checkpoint can result in the DUI charges eventually being dismissed.

At a DUI checkpoint, drivers are forced to come to a stop and briefly speak with police on the scene. If the police detect any signs of intoxication, such as slurred speech, slow motor skills, or the smell of alcohol, then the driver will be asked to exit the vehicle and perform field sobriety tests and a blood alcohol test.  At this point, the police officer may arrest a driver for DUI if he or she believes the driver is under the influence of alcohol.

When operating a DUI checkpoint, the police are required, at a minimum, to adhere to the follow  procedures:

  • The DUI checkpoint must be conducted at a specific location for a limited amount of time so as to impose minimal inconvenience to drivers.
  • All vehicles must be stopped in a consistent and non-discriminatory manner. For example, the police must choose whether they want to stop every car, every other car or every third car, etc.  Once the police choose their method, they must document the system for stopping the vehicles and speaking with the drivers.  The police may only change their system when there is a legitimate reason to do so such as a change in weather conditions or a significant build up in traffic.  If the police do change the stopping method, they must document the time and reason for the change and they must specify the new method for stopping vehicles.
  • The DUI checkpoint should be adequately marked and a signs or devices should be placed to provide advance warning of the DUI checkpoint and they should also advise drivers of why they are being stopped.
  • A sworn, uniformed officer should be assigned to provide on-site supervision of the checkpoint operation and the checkpoint should be staffed by a sufficient number of uniformed police officers to assure a safe and efficient operation, based on traffic volume, roadway size and the type of location.
  • The police should not attempt to stop a driver who lawfully attempts to avoid the DUI checkpoint by turning around or turning off the highway prior to reaching the checkpoint, unless that driver commits a traffic infraction by doing so.

If police fail to comply with any of the above-listed checkpoint rules, the courts will find that the checkpoint was illegally operated, and DUI charges related to the sobriety checkpoint may be reduced, if not thrown out of court altogether.

Posted in DUI

What You Need to Know About Refusing to Take a Blood or Breath Test if You Are Arrested for a DUI


Colorado’s express consent law requires a motorist to take a breath or blood test if he or she is arrested for a DUI, underage drunk driving (UDD), driving while ability impaired (DWAI), or is considered a “habitual user” of controlled dangerous substances.  The law states that if you are lawfully arrested by a police officer who has probable cause to believe that you have been drinking and driving, then by the act of driving, you consent to taking a chemical test of your blood or breath for the purpose of determining your blood alcohol content (BAC).  If the officer believes you may be under the influence of drugs, you also consent to a blood or urine test, the choice of which is determine by the arresting officer.

If the arresting officer suspects that you have been driving under the influence of alcohol and advises you of Colorado’s express consent law, you are then required to choose between a blood test, a breath test or a refusal to take any chemical test.  If you choose to take a blood or breath test, that test must be taken within two hours of the time of driving and you can choose which test to take, unless there are “extraordinary circumstances” such as weather-related delays, high call volume affecting medical personnel, power outages, malfunctioning breath test equipment, and other circumstances that may preclude timely collection and testing.  Once you choose a test, you can’t change your mind.  If you do, then that’s considered a refusal and you won’t get to take the other test, unless you wanted a breath test, but could not complete it because of injuries or illness, then you can have a blood test instead.

You can always refuse to submit to a chemical test of your blood or breath as a result of a DUI traffic stop, even though some people may not realize they have the option of refusal.  Some people may be too anxious, nervous, or panicked to exercise the option to refuse a test, even though they know or remember they have that option.  No matter what, a person who refuses to submit to a chemical test should be aware of heightened penalties associated with making this decision.  A refusal to take a blood or breath test should not to be made lightly without consideration of impacts and ramifications to one’s license.

In Colorado, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) will suspend your license for refusing to take a chemical test, whether it be a blood or breath test for alcohol or a blood, saliva or urine test for drugs.  For your first refusal, you will lose your license out right for one year without any possibility to receive a probationary driver’s license.  For your second refusal, you will lose your license for two years.  You will be eligible to apply for a restricted license with the ignition interlock after 1 year.  For your third and subsequent refusal, you lose your license for three years.  You will also be eligible to apply for a restricted license with the ignition interlock after 1 year.  The penalties for refusing to submit to a chemical test are found in Colorado Revised Statute 42-2-126.  After January of 2014, the law will change regarding the revocation period for refusals. A motorist may be eligible for early reinstatement with the ignition interlock before the 1 year revocation period.

If you are arrested for DUI and refuse to take a blood or breath test after being directed to do so by the arresting officer, that officer will confiscate your driver’s license and issue you an Express Consent Affidavit and Notice of Revocation.  This piece of paper outlines the allegations, probable cause and reasons why the arresting officer believes that your license should be revoked.  If your license is valid (regardless of whether the license is a Colorado license or an out of state license) the arresting officer will check the box at the bottom of the Express Consent Affidavit and Notice of Revocation issuing you a temporary driving permit.  This permit is only valid for seven (7) days.  You then have seven (7) days to contact the Colorado DMV in person or in writing and request a hearing on the notice of revocation.  You always have the right to request the presence of the arresting officer at the revocation hearing and you also have the right to be represented by an attorney at the DMV revocation hearing.  If you make a timely request for a hearing, the DMV may issue you another temporary driving permit at that time.  The temporary driving permit is valid up to the time of the first scheduled hearing or sixty days, whichever is the lesser of the two.  If a hearing is not timely requested, then the suspension takes place on the eighth (8th) day.

Posted in DUI

What You Need to Know About DMV Revocations for Breath or Blood Alcohol Tests …Continued


Pursuant to Colorado’s Express Consent Statute, CRS 42-4-1301.1, a motorist who is arrested for suspicion of DUI and asked to submit to a chemical test for intoxication by the arresting officer has a choice between either a blood test or breath test (barring certain extraordinary circumstances).

When the motorist chooses a blood test, two blood samples are drawn and sent to a state certified laboratory for testing.  One sample is tested and the second sample is preserved for future re-testing by the motorists.  Since the arresting officer must wait some time before receiving the results from the laboratory, the motorist’s license is returned to him or her pending the results of the test.  When the arresting officer receives the results of the blood test analysis from the laboratory and the results are above the per se limit, .08 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood, the officer will then fill out the Express Consent Affidavit and Notice of Revocation and send it along with all other supporting documentation to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).

The DMV will then mail the Notice and Order of Revocation to the motorist’s last known address on file with the DMV and to any different address listed on the Express Consent Affidavit and Notice of Revocation filed out by the officer.  Colorado State residents who request a blood test after being arrested for suspicion of DUI should ensure that the DMV has their correct mailing address on file.  The Notice and Order of Revocation informs the motorist that the revocation will take place on a certain date, usually eleven (11) days from the date of the notice.  The notice also informs that motorist that they have a right to request a hearing by providing written notice and a valid driver’s license to the DMV prior to the effective date of revocation (please note written notice must be received by the DMV usually within ten (10) days of the date of the Notice and Order of Revocation).  The Notice and Order of Revocation is deemed received three (3) days after mailing by the DMV.  If the motorist makes a timely request for hearing and surrenders his or her driver’s license, the DMV will delay the effectiveness of the revocation and issue the motorist a valid permit until the date of the hearing (which is required to be held within 60 days of the request).  If a motorist fails to make a timely written request for a hearing, the revocation will take effect on the date specified on the Notice and Order of Revocation.

Posted in DUI