Glenn had a restricted license with an interlock (alcohol detector) in his car. After a year of use, he tried on his own to get his full driver’s license. His request for a full license was denied. He was denied because the interlock device had detected alcohol on 1 occasion. The Secretary of State had suspected that he was drinking alcohol.
But Glenn had not been drinking alcohol. Instead, he had used some facial medicine which contained alcohol. My job was to convince the hearing officer, on appeal, that the facial medicine caused the high reading on the alcohol detector.
I convinced the hearing officer that the high reading on the interlock was a result of Glenn’s medication and that Glenn had not been drinking alcohol. The alcohol detector had detected an alcohol level of over .09%. This would mean that if Glenn had been drinking (which he hadn’t), he would have had approximately 4 to 5 drinks in his system. Given an alcohol elimination rate of about .015% per hour, it would’ve taken approximately 5 hours for Glenn to burn off the alcohol. The key to Glenn’s case would be found in the alcohol detector records. These records showed that the interlock device requested that Glenn give 4 additional samples over the next 4 hours. All 4 of these samples were negative for alcohol. Thus, if Glenn had consumed alcohol (and again he hadn’t), all 4 of these samples would have been positive because the alcohol would have been in his system when the samples were requested.
After Glenn’s testimony and my closing argument, the hearing officer was convinced that the medication triggered the high reading and that Glenn had not been consuming alcohol. The hearing officer then granted Glenn a full driver’s license.