The Ultimate Goal: Getting My Driver's License Back |
| The ultimate goal of jumping through all these hoops--in addition to satisfying court requirements--is, of course, to reinstate my driving privilege. This section chronicles the steps I took to finally get my license back specifically with regard to dealing with the DMV and other agencies. |
| |
| Tuesday, April 20, 2010 - Getting My License Back 4 | link to this entry | I got my license!
DMV Visit
I never did hear back from the court or police regarding the date correction on my case. Eventually the date came that was listed on the Order of Suspension so I went down to the DMV for round 2 of renewing my license.
I stood in line for an hour and then waited 30 minutes once I got my number to be called up. I realize that waiting times at the DMV are as stale a topic as airline/hospital food but I feel it's necessary to note the details of the event. Once I got called up, however, it was a nice change of pace from last time. Credit where credit is due: the woman who helped me knew her shit. She chugged through the paperwork with a minimum of input from me and about 10 minutes later I was out the door with my temporary paper license to be replaced by the official sumbitch that gets mailed from Sacramento. She gave me the option of taking a new picture or just using the one from last year when I got my ID card. I opted for the latter since the line for pictures was about a dozen people deep.
The DMV visit cost me $165 in total: $140 for reinstating the license and $25 for the license replacement. It turns out that if the cop had given me back my license after my arrest, or if I had a receipt showing that he took it, then the fee would be waived. I know I don't have a receipt, and I'm pretty organized with my paperwork, so either he never gave me a receipt (not at all unlikely) or I thought it wasn't important at the time and threw it out. So there's another small tip for anyone out there unlucky enough to land themselves in this position: get a receipt from the police when they take your physical license away.
IID Installation
After wrapping things up at the DMV I made an appointment to have the ignition interlock device installed. The appointment was for this morning so I made my way to the auto center. There are a number of approved IIDs for California. I went with Smart Start since it was the first one I found during a Google search.
The installation took about an hour and a half and included some minor paperwork to be filled out. As they were beginning the installation the mechanic had me watch a 10 minute training video that Smart Start provides.
"You know, we're not Smart Start, we're just an installer. We're not judgmental here. A lot of people come in thinking their life is over and feel embarrassed about getting this thing installed. But don't worry about it. Nobody gives a fuck."
The mechanic then went on to say he had a guy come in who had just gotten divorced and was worried about what potential dates might think when they saw the IID. He told the guy not to worry about it and when the guy came back later for a service, he said that women he went out with didn't seem to care and some actually felt safer.
The comments from the mechanic were an unexpected but nice bit of sympathy and I told the guy I appreciated him saying that.
After the video I hit up a cafe for some coffee and a sandwich and when I came back the installation was completed. It was just over $100 for the install with the first month free. I have to go back in every 30 days so they can re-calibrate the device and take another $75. The guy also said the battery in my car was bad so I had them change it. He could have been fucking with me and just trying to squeeze out more money but I didn't really want to take the chance of having my battery die once I left the shop. According to the mechanic and the training video, it's important to have the electrical system in good working order since the IID relies on the battery and a dead battery could be interpreted in the log as tampering with the device which results in a violation and could be a criminal offence. I figured I should just have the battery replaced while still at the shop just in case anything were to go wrong if I replaced it myself some other time. Plus, the shop seemed legit so I don't think they were trying to screw me over.
So, I'm officially back to being a motorist. Once I got the car started at the shop, it had me retake the test after about 5 minutes of driving. After that, though, it didn't have me retest until I was almost home about 30 minutes later. No problems though. So far it seems to be working fine.
Initially when I started this site/blog I thought I would end the entries once I was done with OHS (which won't be for another 6 months). Now, however, I think I'm going to continue with it and make periodic entries about my experience with the IID over the course of the next year. It seems inevitable that I'll get shit from friends, coworkers, or other drivers on the road for having the device installed so I might as well create some entertainment value from it.
On a related note: Thanks to those of you who have sent me emails offering support. It is appreciated. |
| Thursday, March 25, 2010 - Getting My License Back 3 | link to this entry | Still no word from the court or police about correcting the violation date and getting the amended abstract. I guess I just have to wait until next month at this point. Oh well.
I've been looking for a new job and had a background check run recently. I elected to get a copy of it and went through it the other day. I saw that on my driving record it looks like there are two suspensions listed, one expiring this month and one in April. I guess the woman at MAU was correct about one being from the court and the other being from the DMV. I hope that's due to the clerical error of having the violation date inconsistent because it seems a little fucked up to get two suspensions for one violation. I also don't know why the cretin woman at the DMV couldn't pause her ranting for a minute and explain that that was the case. Shouldn't people at the DMV be experienced in dealing with situations like this? I'm sure it's not the first time it's happened. |
| Wednesday, March 10, 2010 - Getting My License Back 2 | link to this entry | After the clusterfuck at the DMV I called up MAU to explain my situation and find out what I could do. At first the woman I spoke with said that I wasn't eligible to get my license back until April but then reversed her position and said that I may be able to get it now but that there's a problem with the dates on the paperwork.
The Administrative Per Se hearing paperwork has the violation date listed as the day before what is shown on the Order of Suspension. I assume that's because I was stopped before midnight but booked after midnight. She theorized that the date conflict is what is causing the problem.
It seems like a ridiculously small thing to have such an effect but the woman on the line with MAU suggested I contact the court and have them send an amended abstract with the corrected date to the DMV. She said they can do this electronically and it shouldn't take long.
I called up the court, spoke with the clerk who was very polite, and he said he understood the problem but would have to pass things along to his supervisor. I left him with my number and he said he'd call back when he had some news.
Meanwhile, I emailed my lawyer about the hassle and asked him if there was anything else he or I could do. He didn't have any sage advice but said that he's seen this type of thing before.
I heard back from the court clerk about a day later. He said that he couldn't--or his supervisor couldn't--change the date without the arresting police officer reviewing the case. He said he would contact the police station at which I was booked and see if he could get them to do that but cautioned it may take a couple weeks.
After getting off the phone with the court I called up MAU again. This especially sucks because getting through to someone at MAU is a fucking pain. The number is busy most times you dial it. You can only get through about 1 in 20 times. And even then, once you navigate their automated menu, about 2/3 of the time when they go to transfer you to someone, the call drops and you get a busy signal. But if you're lucky enough to get the line to pick up when you dial, and the call doesn't drop when it gets transferred, then you get to talk to someone after staying on hold for several minutes.
Anyway, I spoke with a different woman this time at MAU. Again I explained the situation and she said that the Order of Suspension is from the court and the Administrative Per Se hearing is from the DMV. She then went on to say that the Order of Suspension is a criminal matter and the Administrative Per Se hearing is civil so they're two separate things but the former overrides the latter. I don't really understand that because:
1. The Order of Suspension is clearly from the DMV.
2. I thought the DMV had final say in whether or not you get your driver's license.
"So what you're telling me is that the DMV hearings are pointless," I said.
"Well, if that's how you want to interpret it..."
I think that's how any rational person would interpret it.
I asked about the amended abstract with the corrected date but she said that wouldn't matter, which goes against what the other woman said, which is just one more example of people not being in agreement about how the system works. I told her that the date discrepancy is because of being arrested before midnight and booked after midnight and that it was ridiculous that their system couldn't handle that type of thing. She didn't have a response or explanation and didn't seem to care.
So if the Order of Suspension is what counts, then that should mean I could have driven in March of last year (my lawyer got me a stay of suspenion until the DMV hearing). But my gut feeling is that if I had driven, and had been pulled over, then somehow the hearing outcome would come into play and I'd be violating the law. If that's the case--which I don't really know if it is or not--then that means I had my license suspended for over 13 months, not the mandatory 12 that the laws claims.
So at this point I guess I'm stuck until next month unless the court clerk can work some magic with the police. In the grand scheme of things waiting one more month after waiting a year isn't a big deal but this has definitely been an ordeal.
While I don't recommend drinking and driving, here's another tip if you do: Do your drunk driving early in the afternoon or after midnight. |
| Monday, March 08, 2010 - Getting My License Back 1 | link to this entry | This is the first of what may or may not be many entries that describe getting my license back, particularly with regard to the DMV. I've also finally written out the two DUI experiences here.
I have two letters from the DMV regarding my license suspension. One is an Order of Suspension that states my license is suspended for a year and I can get it back in April (I don't really want to list exact dates here). The other is the overview and results of the Adminstrative Per Se hearing conducted by the DMV. The hearing is attended either by the person themselves or their lawyer. In my case my lawyer handled it over the phone. The hearing results state that I can get my license back in March.
I went down to the DMV recently to try to get my license. I didn't know which date would really determine when I was eligible for a license but I figured it couldn't hurt to try sooner and go back later if necessary.
The computers and queueing system were down for the first hour I stood in line but eventually got a license application and was talking to a DMV employee after close to two hours of being there. At first she said they couldn't process licenses that day due to computer problems.
"Well, the woman who was making announcements outside said that you could still do that if I have a picture on file, which I do."
"Oh, okay."
Then she said I couldn't get my license back because I have to complete the 18 month program. I informed her that was not correct and that I had paperwork stating I could get it back that day.
"Oh, okay."
Then she said that the April date was when I could get my license back but, again, I stated I had paperwork that said otherwise and showed her the hearing results.
"Oh, okay."
She next said that she'd have to call the Mandatory Actions Unit to get the restictions placed on my license. The MAU is basically the main agency in Sacramento that handles DUI cases for California DMV.
According to my Order of Suspension I have the option to do one of the following:
- Get a restricted license for a year where I can only drive to school or work (OHS counts as school).
- Get a full license but have to have an Ignition Interlock Device (a breathalyzer that won't allow the car to be started if your BAC is over .02%) installed in my car for one year.
I told the woman that I didn't want the restricted license but wanted the full license and have the IID installed.
"I don't think we can do that," she said, befuddled.
I said I had paperwork that said I could do that and showed her the Order of Suspension.
"Oh, okay. Do you have the interlock installed?"
"No, I was waiting to see if I could get my license first."
She then took my insurance information and SR-22 (basically, official proof of insurance). I at least got that filed away, though my insurance company should have already sent that over.
On a side note, I got a new insurance policy through AAA the other week. My rate went up, of course, but not as much as I thought it would. It's still high, but insurance only goes back 7 years for DUIs so only the latest one counts on my insurance rate.
After getting my insurance information she spoke to a coworker (or supervisor, I'm not sure) who had to call MAU to verify everything. The woman had me stand to the side while helping other people in line.
After about 20 minutes of waiting, I was called back to the counter. The coworker/supervisor came over and just flat out denied what I was saying and told me I would have to wait until April. I tried explaining my situation about the DMV hearing and the conflicting paperwork but she refused to listen. She even refused to look at the paperwork. I kept trying to show it to her but she held eye contact and just said, "I don't need to read anything."
"Why does the DMV have hearings if they're not going to abide by the outcome?" I asked.
"Sir, I already answered your question."
"No, you didn't. Why does the DMV have hearings if they're not going to abide by the outcome?" She again refused to address the question or look at the paperwork I was holding out to her. She just railroaded over anything I had to say.
At that point I was getting rather frustrated and suggested that she learn how to read. She disagreed and walked away.
Left with no other option, I packed up my paperwork and left.
I'm okay with having lost my license for a year. You do the crime, you do the time. No problem. What I'm not okay with is how poorly organized things seem to be and with how the second woman treated me. If she could explain, rationally, why the eligibility dates were different and why one had more say, then fine. But to just railroad over anything I had to say and stonewall me like that was infuriating. I can only assume she doesn't know the reason herself, or just likes fucking with people. But I tend to subscribe to Hanlon's Razor:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
The other thing that blew me away was how unfamiliar the first woman at the DMV was in dealing with my situation. To be fair, she was being polite and helpful and allowed me to explain things. But I almost had to step her through the process and familiarize her with the various paperwork involved. I shouldn't know the system better than she does.
For people who find themselves in my situation: Bring ALL your paperwork when you go to the DMV. And have it organized so you can quickly reference important details.
And, hey, California? How about raising the bar a little regarding your hiring standards? Hire people who actually know what the fuck they're doing. And not just the people who deal with the public, but whoever implements your processes and computer applications. When you need a system built, don't just spray your load over the lowest bidder. You get what you pay for.
Of course, government salaries generally can't compete with private industry, especially not in these times and not during California's financial crisis. So, the talented, intelligent people go to places like Google, eBay, etc... and you get cretins like the coworker/supervisor crawling out of the muck into positions of modest authority.
The irony is that if California, or government in general, floated the bill for better people, they would get more bang for their buck and things wouldn't be so disorganized and run so poorly. Imagine a DMV or post office that ran as well as a Google application. That's the world I one day want to live in. |
|
|
