a)
Documents/Evidence Required. Except as provided in subsection (a)(1), in any
application for reinstatement, an RDP, or the termination of an order of
cancellation at a show cause hearing, all petitioners must submit an alcohol
and drug evaluation and, where required, evidence of successful completion of
an alcohol and drug-related driver risk education course and/or evidence of
successful completion of early intervention, treatment or proof of adequate
rehabilitative progress. These requirements apply to MDDP offenders whose
permits are cancelled and who apply for an RDP pursuant to IVC Section
6-206.1(l) and Section
1001.444(a)
of this Part.
1) An alcohol and drug
evaluation and the evidence of successful completion of early intervention or
treatment submitted by a resident of Illinois must have been conducted by an
individual or an agency licensed by DSUPR. An alcohol or drug-related driver
risk education course completed by an Illinois resident must have been provided
by an individual or agency licensed by DSUPR. (See 77 Ill. Adm. Code
2060.201.)
Exceptions to these requirements will be allowed in the following cases:
A) If the petitioner is currently and has
been temporarily residing outside the State of Illinois, then the updated
evaluation, early intervention, treatment, and driver risk education course may
be provided by an individual or agency accredited by the state in which the
individual or agency operates;
B)
If the petitioner currently resides in Illinois but received treatment for
alcohol or drug abuse or dependence from a treatment program located outside
the State of Illinois that has been appropriately accredited by the state in
which it operates, then the petitioner may document the successful completion
of that treatment in the manner provided by subsection (m). However, the
petitioner's evaluation and driver risk education course must be provided by an
individual or agency licensed by DSUPR; or
C) If the petitioner successfully completed,
after the most recent arrest for DUI, a High Risk treatment program provided by
an individual or agency licensed by DSUPR.
2) Choice of Programs. The choice of these
programs is within the discretion of the petitioner. The evidence submitted
must be printed, although the evaluator may testify at any hearing.
3) Evaluation Standards. The alcohol and drug
evaluation (Uniform Report), as defined in Section
1001.410, must
conform to all current standards for an evaluation set by DSUPR, where
applicable, and/or to all current Secretary of State requirements set forth in
this Subpart D. (See 77 Ill. Adm. Code
2060.503.) The
evaluation must be signed and dated by both petitioner and evaluator. The
evaluation must include a recitation of: the petitioner's alcohol/drug use
history, from first use to present use; all DUI dispositions, as defined in
Section 1001.410, including any out-of-state DUI disposition, regardless of
whether the offense has been recorded to the offender's Illinois driving
record; any arrests or implied consent suspensions for boating or snowmobiling
under the influence that occurred within the last 5 years (as of the date of
the hearing); a referral to early intervention or treatment, or a referral to a
treatment provider for the purpose of conducting a Treatment Needs Assessment
(see Section 1001.440(b)(7)) ; and the petitioner's alcohol/drug-related
criminal convictions, as defined in Section 1001.410. The alcohol/drug use
history must be recited in either the body of the evaluation or an attachment
to the evaluation. The attachment must include the evaluator's signature, the
date it was composed, and the name of the agency or program that is providing
the evaluation.
4) Driver Risk
Education Course. The alcohol and drug-related driver risk education course
must, at a minimum, conform to the standards for alcohol/drug driver risk
education courses set by DSUPR. (See 77 Ill. Adm. Code
2060.505.) Any
alcohol or drug related driver risk education course required by this Part must
be completed after the date of the most recent arrest for DUI, BUI or
SUI.
5) Evaluation Must Be Current.
The alcohol and drug evaluation must be current, which is defined as having
been completed within 6 months prior to the date of the hearing.
A) Update Evaluation. An update evaluation
shall be conducted only by means of an in-person interview and only by the same
program that conducted the original evaluation. Exceptions to the latter
requirement will be allowed under the following circumstances:
i) Transfer of File. If the petitioner's
evaluation or treatment file or copies of all evaluation or treatment file
material are transferred to another evaluation or treatment program that
prepares the update. The program that conducts the update evaluation should
explain, either in a separate cover letter or in the body of the update
evaluation, how, when and why the petitioner's file was transferred to it. The
transfer will be considered acceptable only if the original evaluating program
can no longer provide evaluation services for reasons such as a suspended or
revoked license or voluntarily terminating evaluation business operations, or
if an individual service provider leaves the program that conducted the
original Uniform Report and the petitioner wishes to continue receiving
services from that individual, or if the petitioner relocates to another part
of the state. In the latter case, the petitioner carries the burden of proving
relocation at least 50 miles from the original service provider's nearest
location. When transferring a file, the sending program shall not allow it to
be delivered by the petitioner to the receiving agency. If an update cannot be
obtained by reviewing the original case file information, another original
evaluation must be submitted.
ii)
Treatment Provider Who Can Perform Update Evaluations. If the petitioner
completes primary treatment recommended as a result of the most recent alcohol
and drug evaluation, the program providing the treatment may prepare any
subsequent update evaluation from its own case file information without
obtaining the information from the evaluating program that made the treatment
recommendation. Furthermore, a chronological alcohol/drug use history may be
prepared by the program that provided the treatment, when one is requested by
the petitioner, the Secretary or a hearing officer in a decision entered as a
result of a formal or informal hearing, to be submitted as part of the
petitioner's evidence at the next hearing. A treatment provider may not conduct
the update evaluation if the only service it provided was early intervention or
continuing care services, or if it waives treatment, unless the petitioner's
case file has been transferred to it.
B) Update Evaluation - Content. An Illinois
and out-of-state update evaluation shall report, at a minimum and when
applicable, the following: a description of alcohol/drug use and/or abuse
covering the time since the last evaluation or update; the facts of any arrest
or citation for a traffic or criminal offense that is, in any way,
alcohol/drug-related; any impairment of significant life areas, any symptoms of
alcohol/drug abuse or alcohol/drug-related problems since the last evaluation
or update; any current significant physical, medical, emotional/mental health
problem and participation in, and/or completion of, any early intervention or
treatment for that problem; whether the petitioner is taking any prescription
medication that, when taken alone or in combination with alcohol or other
drugs, might impair driving ability; any significant life style changes since
the previous evaluation; the petitioner's current peer group and most important
recreational activities; the petitioner's intent regarding future of
alcohol/drug use; if the petitioner is classified as High Risk-Dependent,
identification of the petitioner's support group and the evaluator's assessment
of its effectiveness and sufficiency; a response to the issues raised at the
petitioner's most recent hearing for driving relief and an assessment of
whether additional treatment is warranted; the evaluator's previous and current
alcohol/drug-use classification of the petitioner; any current recommendations
and the rationale for those recommendations; and an indication of whether the
petitioner has completed all prior recommendations. If the petitioner's Uniform
Report did not include the alcohol/drug use history required by subsection
(a)(4), then it may be provided in an update evaluation. The update evaluation
must be corroborated by an interview with a family member or significant other.
The information obtained must be summarized and the evaluator should indicate
whether it corroborates the data provided by the petitioner. The update
evaluation must be printed, on a form provided by the Department, and verified
by the evaluator. (See subsection (a)(1).)
i)
Any update evaluation that reclassifies a petitioner to or within a Moderate,
Significant or High Risk classification shall include a referral to a treatment
provider for the purpose of determining the need, if any, for additional
rehabilitative activity. Any waiver of additional rehabilitative activity by
the treatment provider must be in writing and include the rationale for the
waiver. Any recommendation for additional rehabilitative activity must be
complied with before relief will be granted.
ii) A petitioner may not submit an update
evaluation if the Uniform Report being updated does not discuss the most recent
DUI disposition. In such case the petitioner must submit a Uniform
Report.
iii) An update evaluation
may not reclassify a petitioner from a previous classification unless the
evaluator believes that the previous classification was improper or in error
and justifies and explains in detail why the previous classification was
improper or in error and why the new classification is proper and
appropriate.
C)
Investigative Evaluation - Content. An Illinois and Out-of-State investigative
alcohol and drug evaluation shall report, at a minimum and when applicable, the
following: a complete alcohol and drug use history, from first use to present
use, including a recitation of any symptoms of alcohol/drug abuse or
alcohol/drug-related problems experienced by the petitioner throughout the
petitioner's alcohol/drug use history; whether there is any history of
alcoholism or drug addiction in the petitioner's immediate family; whether the
petitioner has a history of treatment for alcohol/drug abuse; any current
significant physical, medical, emotional/mental health problem and
participation in, and/or completion of, any treatment for that problem; whether
the petitioner is taking any prescription medication that, when taken alone or
in combination with alcohol or other drugs, might impair driving ability; a
response to the issues raised at the petitioner's most recent hearing for
driving relief and an assessment of whether additional treatment is warranted;
a history of alcohol and drug-related driving, boating, snowmobiling, and
criminal offenses (including all DUI dispositions, regardless of where the
offense occurred or whether it has been recorded to the offender's Illinois
driving record); a clinical impression of what the evaluation data indicates
and the rationale for that conclusion; any recommendations and the rationale
for such recommendations. The evaluation must be corroborated by an interview
with a significant other and by the administration of an objective test. The
information must be summarized and the evaluator should indicate whether it
corroborates the data provided by the petitioner. The evaluation must be
printed, on a form provided by the Department, and verified by the evaluator.
The program that completes the evaluation must meet the same standards as
programs qualified to prepare Uniform Reports. (See subsection
(a)(1).)
D) Circumstances When an
Update of an Investigative Evaluation is Required. If the evaluator recommends
any rehabilitative activity after conducting an Investigative Evaluation, the
petitioner must submit an update evaluation, as provided in this Subpart D,
until the petitioner's driving privileges are reinstated. If the evaluator
concludes that the petitioner does not need any rehabilitative activity (i.e.,
a driver risk education course, early intervention, or treatment for
alcohol/drug abuse), and the Secretary accepts this conclusion, then the
petitioner is not required to submit an update evaluation at future hearings
(assuming that there are no intervening alcohol/drug-related arrests or
incidents that might cause the Secretary to question this
conclusion).
E) Circumstances When
an Update Evaluation is Not Required.
i)
Petitioners classified at High Risk Dependent who have driven successfully on a
restricted driving permit for at least 3 years after submitting an original
evaluation are not required to provide an update evaluation if:
* the petitioner files for an extension or revision of the
RDP, an additional RDP, or for another hearing during the term of the current
RDP; or
* the current RDP is expired for no more than 30 days at the
time the petitioner files for an extension or revision of the RDP, an
additional RDP, or for another hearing. All other documentation required by
this Subpart D must be submitted.
ii) For purposes of this subsection
(a)(6)(F), a petitioner is not deemed to have successfully driven on a
restricted driving permit if the petitioner is a BAIID permittee whose monitor
reports reflect the use of alcohol.
b) Burden of Proof. Before any driving relief
will be granted, the petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence:
that the petitioner does not have a current problem with alcohol or other
drugs; that the petitioner is a low or minimal risk to repeat past abusive
behaviors and the operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of
alcohol or other drugs; and that the petitioner has complied with all other
standards as specified in this Subpart D. If the evidence establishes that the
petitioner has had an alcohol/drug problem, the petitioner must also prove that
the problem has been resolved. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the renewal of a
permit issued to a petitioner that is classified as High Risk Dependent shall
not be denied based on evidence including, but not limited to, BAIID
violations, that indicate a petitioner is not abstinent.
1) Minimal Risk. Petitioners whose use of
alcohol/drugs has been classified under this Section as Minimal Risk must
document successful completion of a 10 hour alcohol/drug driver risk education
course by submission of a document that reflects the completion of the
requirements contained in 77 Ill. Adm. Code
2060.505. The driver risk education
course cannot be waived, except as provided in subsection (a)(1)(C).
2) Moderate Risk. Petitioners whose use of
alcohol/drugs has been classified under this Section as Moderate Risk must
document successful completion of an alcohol/drug driver risk education course
as specified in subsection (b)(1) and the early intervention and any additional
treatment recommended by the evaluator or other qualified professional
recommended on referral by the evaluator. The driver risk education course
cannot be waived, except as provided in subsection (a)(1)(C). The early
intervention and/or treatment must be provided by an individual or agency
licensed to provide those services by DSUPR or the Illinois Department of
Public Health, or an individual therapist who is licensed as a private
practitioner by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional
Regulation-Division of Professional Regulation, or an out-of-state individual
therapist or agency properly licensed by the state in which the therapist
operates.
3) Significant Risk.
Petitioners whose use of alcohol/drugs has been classified under this Section
as Significant Risk must document successful completion of an alcohol/drug
driver risk education course as specified in subsection (b)(1) and the
treatment recommended by the evaluator or other qualified professional
recommended on referral by the evaluator. The driver risk education course
cannot be waived, except as provided in subsection (a)(1)(C). The treatment
must be provided by an individual or agency licensed to provide those
treatments by DSUPR or the Illinois Department of Public Health, or an
individual therapist who is licensed as a private practitioner by the Illinois
Department of Financial and Professional Regulation-Division of Professional
Regulation, or an out-of-state individual therapist or agency properly licensed
by the state in which the therapist operates.
4) High Risk Dependent. Petitioners
classified under this Section as High Risk Dependent must document abstinence
as required in subsection (e); the completion of treatment provided by a
facility or facilitator licensed by DSUPR or the Illinois Department of Public
Health, an individual therapist who is licensed as a private practitioner by
the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation-Division of
Professional Regulation, or an out-of-state individual therapist or agency
properly licensed by the state in which the therapist operates; the
establishment of an ongoing support/recovery program; and compliance with any
additional recommendations of the evaluator or treatment provider.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the renewal of a permit issued to a petitioner
that is classified as High Risk Dependent shall not be denied based on BAIID
violations that indicate the petitioner is not abstinent.
5) High Risk Nondependent. Petitioners
classified under this Section as High Risk Nondependent must document:
non-problematic use as provided in subsection (f); treatment provided by a
facility or facilitator licensed by DSUPR or the Illinois Department of Public
Health, an individual therapist who is licensed as a private practitioner by
the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation-Division of
Professional Regulation, or an out-of-state individual therapist or agency
properly licensed by the state in which the therapist operates; compliance with
any additional recommendations of the evaluator or treatment provider,
including abstinence; and a detailed explanation by the treatment provider as
to why dependency was ruled out. The failure of a petitioner to submit the
"detailed explanation" is sufficient grounds, in and of itself, to deny the
petition for driving relief. The explanation should focus on the most recent
offense.
6) Investigative
Evaluation. Petitioners who obtain an investigative alcohol/drug evaluation
must document the completion of any recommended intervention or treatment
provided by a facility or facilitator licensed by DSUPR or the Illinois
Department of Public Health, an individual therapist who is licensed as a
private practitioner by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional
Regulation-Division of Professional Regulation, or an out-of-state individual
therapist or agency properly licensed by the state in which the therapist
operates. If found to be chemically dependent, then the petitioner must prove
abstinence as required in subsection (e) and the establishment of an ongoing
support/recovery program, and compliance with any additional recommendations of
the evaluator or treatment provider. Furthermore, if rehabilitative activity
(i.e., a driver risk education course, intervention, or treatment for
alcohol/drug abuse) is recommended, then the petitioner must submit an update
evaluation, as provided in this Subpart D, until the petitioner's driving
privileges are reinstated.
7)
Treatment Waiver Required - Documentation of Most Recent Treatment. In the
event that a treatment provider does not require an individual classified
Moderate, Significant or High Risk to complete at least the minimum amount and
type of early intervention or treatment specified by DSUPR, the treatment
provider must supply the Department with a detailed explanation of the
rationale for that decision. The driver risk education course cannot be waived,
except as provided in subsection (a)(1)(C). In the course of assessing whether
to waive early intervention or treatment, the treatment provider should attempt
to obtain documentation of a petitioner's most recent treatment experience and
incorporate the information in this assessment if: the treatment provider
contends that the petitioner's alcohol/drug use classification should be
changed to a lower risk classification, or the documentation states that the
petitioner's prognosis at the time of discharge was guarded. The treatment
provider should be prepared to explain the reasons for not obtaining this
documentation and to provide written verification that the documentation is not
available. The Secretary reserves the discretion to reject a waiver of
treatment if the hearing officer is able to articulate specific reasons to
doubt its validity.
8) Treatment
Needs Assessment Required; Documentation of Most Recent Treatment. Whenever a
service provider conducts and composes a Uniform Report, it is required to
refer the petitioner to a treatment provider for an assessment of whether
intervention or treatment for alcohol/drug abuse is warranted, pursuant to
DSUPR rules at 77 Ill. Adm. Code Section
2060.503(h).
The petitioner must provide a Treatment Needs Assessment whenever another
Uniform Report is composed, regardless of whether the petitioner successfully
completed intervention or treatment after the previous Uniform Report, in order
to inform the Secretary whether additional intervention or treatment is
warranted as a result of the information obtained during the course of the
subsequent Uniform Report. The Treatment Needs Assessment shall be composed on
the treatment provider's letterhead stationery or incorporated into the
"Treatment Verification" form composed, published and distributed by the
Department. If composed on stationery, then the Treatment Needs Assessment must
be signed and dated by the counselor responsible for the assessment.
A) The Treatment Needs Assessment must be
provided by a licensed treatment provider regardless of whether the petitioner
has committed any traffic or criminal offense that mandates the composition of
a Uniform Report.
B) In the course
of conducting the Treatment Needs Assessment, the treatment provider should
attempt to obtain documentation of a petitioner's most recent treatment
experience and incorporate the information in this assessment, along with the
petitioner's conduct since that treatment experience, in the provider's
findings and conclusions. The treatment provider should be prepared to explain
the reasons for not obtaining this documentation and to provide written
verification that the documentation is not available.
9) BAIID Violations. BAIID violations that
indicate the consumptions of alcohol shall not serve as a sole basis for not
renewing, cancelling or revoking a permit.
c) Rebuttable Presumption. The presence of
more than one DUI disposition on a petitioner's abstract shall create a
rebuttable presumption that the petitioner suffers from a current alcohol/drug
problem and should, therefore, be classified at least Significant
Risk.
d) Evidence Considered.
Evidence which shall be considered in determining whether the petitioner has
met the burden of proof and has overcome the presumption of a current
alcohol/drug problem includes, but is not limited to, the following, where
applicable:
2) The similarity of circumstances between
alcohol or drug-related arrests;
3)
Any property damage or personal injury caused by the petitioner while driving
under the influence;
4) Changes in
life style and alcohol/drug use patterns following alcohol/drug-related arrest,
and the reasons for the change;
5)
The chronological relationship of alcohol/drug-related arrests;
6) Length of alcohol/drug abuse
pattern;
7) Degree of
self-acceptance of alcohol/drug problem;
8) Degree of involvement in or successful
completion of prior treatment/intervention recommendations following
alcohol/drug related arrests and in a support/recovery program;
9) Prior relapses from attempted abstinence,
except that BAIID violations that indicate the consumption of alcohol, shall
not serve as the sole basis for not renewing or cancelling a permit;
10) Identification, treatment and resolution
of the cause of the high risk behavior of any petitioner classified High Risk
Nondependent;
11) The problems,
pressures and/or external forces alleged to have precipitated the petitioner's
abuse of alcohol or other drugs on the occasion of each alcohol/drug-related
arrest, and the present status of the same, particularly whether they have been
satisfactorily resolved;
12) The
petitioner's explanation for the multiple arrests and/or convictions for
offenses involving alcohol/drugs, particularly for allowing the second and
subsequent arrests/convictions to occur;
13) In out-of-state petitions, the
evaluator's rationale for classifying a petitioner with multiple DUI
dispositions as a Minimal or Moderate Risk. In these cases it is particularly
important that the evaluator's classification be based on complete and accurate
information;
14) The petitioner's
criminal history, particularly drug offenses or offenses that in any way
involved alcohol/drugs;
15) The
petitioner's chemical test results of the petitioner's blood, breath or urine
from all previous arrests or all previous alcohol/drug-related offenses (not
just traffic offenses) in addition to the chemical test results of the most
recent arrest;
16) The extent to
which, in terms of completeness and thoroughness, a petitioner and service
providers have addressed every issue raised by the hearing officers in previous
hearings;
17) It is particularly
important that the evaluator's classification be based on complete, accurate
and consistent information, especially all of the petitioner's DUI arrests and
BAC test results. The probative value of evaluations that deviate from this
standard will be diminished. The degree to which their probative value will be
diminished will depend upon the degree to which the evaluation deviates from
this standard and the standards imposed by DSUPR;
18) The petitioner's record of performance
while driving with an interlock device and record of compliance with the terms
and conditions of the breath alcohol ignition interlock device program or the
monitoring device driving permit program. A BAIID violation indicating
consumption of alcohol may not be the sole basis for denying driving
relief;
19) Written or verbal
statements from members of the public, including crime victims as defined in
the Code of Criminal Procedure [
725 ILCS
120/3 ] or family members of victims of offenses
committed by a petitioner, so long as the statement is relevant to the issues
at the hearing;
20) The service
provider's clinical rationale or justification for changing the classification
of a petitioner's alcohol/drug use, or for giving a classification that is
different than that given in other evaluation or treatment documents or by
other service providers;
21) The
treatment provider's explanation for failing to obtain, when requested,
documentation of the petitioner's most recent treatment;
22) Whether the petitioner has been
incarcerated and was recently released after an extended period of
incarceration and whether the petitioner participated in any rehabilitative
activity during incarceration.
e) Documentation of Abstinence
1) Petitioners classified as High Risk
Dependent, or any other petitioner with a recommendation of abstinence by a
DSUPR licensed evaluator or treatment provider, must have a minimum of 12
consecutive months of documented abstinence, except as provided in subsections
(e)(3), (4) and (7), in regard to opiate substitution, medical cannabis
programs, and BAIID permittees. This means that the petitioner must be
abstinent from alcohol and all controlled substances, legal and illegal, unless
the drug is prescribed by a physician, and regardless of whether alcohol or
another drug was the petitioner's drug of choice when using. Abstinence that
occurs during a period of extended incarceration is not favored, unless
petitioner took proactive steps toward rehabilitation while incarcerated, as it
occurs in a controlled environment. Documentation of abstinence must be
received from at least 3 independent sources. The sources should not be fellow
members of a support group unless those members have regular and frequent
contact with the petitioner outside the group meetings. The hearing officer
shall determine the weight to be accorded the documentation, taking into
account the credibility of the source and the totality of the evidence adduced
at the hearing. Letters or witness testimony establishing abstinence should
contain, at a minimum, the following:
A) The
person's relationship to petitioner (friend, family member, fellow employee,
etc.).
B) How long the person has
known the petitioner.
C) How often
the person sees the petitioner (daily, weekly, monthly, etc.).
D) How long the person knows the petitioner
has abstained.
E) Each letter must
be dated and signed by its authors. All letters must be submitted in their
original form and should be dated no more than 45 days prior to the hearing
date. Telephone facsimiles and photocopies of original letters will be admitted
into evidence pending the submission of the original within a reasonable number
of days as determined by the presiding hearing officer. The petitioner's
failure to maintain strict compliance with these requirements shall not be the
sole basis for withdrawing from a hearing or denying relief.
2) Petitioners who are classified
as Significant Risk or High Risk Non-Dependent and who are required by IVC
Sections 6-205(a)(
1.5) and 6-206(c)(3)(F) to
prove 3 years of uninterrupted abstinence in order to obtain an RDP may prove
that this abstinence occurred during any period of time after the most recent
arrest for driving under the influence. Petitioners who are classified as High
Risk Dependent who are required to prove 3 years of uninterrupted abstinence by
IVC Sections 6-205(a)(1.5) and 6-206(c)(3)(F) in order to obtain an RDP must
prove that their period of abstinence began after the most recent arrest for
driving under the influence. They must also prove that they have been abstinent
for the 3 years immediately prior to their hearing. Proof of abstinence must
comply with the requirements of subsection (e)(1).
3) Waivers of the rule requiring 12 months of
abstinence are discretionary when considering an RDP but shall not be granted
unless the petitioner proves at least 6 months continuous abstinence at the
time of the hearing.
4) Opiate
Substitution Programs. Petitioners who are able to document that they are
involved in a long-term opiate substitution program, such as methadone
maintenance, are not required to prove abstinence from the substitute drug that
has been prescribed to them in order to obtain driving relief. Rather, they
must prove that they have been stable in the program for at least one year. The
petitioner's documentation must include an Opiate Substitution form completed
by the petitioner, the petitioner's primary or reviewing physician, and the
petitioner's primary substance abuse provider or evaluator. The petitioner must
satisfy the other requirements of this Subpart D, including abstinence from
alcohol and all other drugs, in order to obtain driving relief.
5) Use of Medical Cannabis. Petitioners who
are able to document that a physician has recommended the use of what is
defined and authorized as "medical cannabis" in the Compassionate Use of
Medical Cannabis Program Act are not required to prove abstinence from the
cannabis that has been recommended in order to obtain driving relief. Rather,
they must prove that they are stable. Petitioners who are classified as
high-risk dependent and who have been diagnosed as dependent on cannabis must
prove stability in the program for a minimum of 6 months before an RDP may be
issued and a minimum of 12 months before reinstatement. The petitioner's
documentation must include a Medical Cannabis form completed by the petitioner,
the petitioner's primary or reviewing physician, and the petitioner's primary
substance abuse provider or evaluator. The petitioner must satisfy the other
requirements of this Subpart D, including abstinence from alcohol and all other
drugs, in order to obtain driving relief.
6) Use of Prescribed Opiate Medication.
Petitioners who are able to document that a physician has prescribed opiate
medication are not required to prove abstinence from the prescribed opiates in
order to obtain driving relief. Rather, they must prove that they are stable on
the prescribed opiate medication. Petitioners who are classified as high-risk
dependent and who have been diagnosed as dependent on the prescribed opiate
must prove stability in the program for a minimum of 6 months before an RDP may
be issued and a minimum of 12 months before granted reinstatement. The
petitioner's documentation must include an Opiate Medication form completed by
the petitioner, the petitioner's primary or reviewing physician, and the
petitioner's primary substance abuse provider or evaluator. The petitioner must
satisfy the other requirements of this Subpart D, including abstinence from
alcohol and all other drugs, in order to obtain driving relief.
7) Consumption of "Near-Alcoholic" Beverages.
The consumption of "near-alcoholic" beverages does not violate the rule
requiring abstinence. However, this conduct is a valid subject to be considered
in determining the ultimate issue of whether the petitioner has met the burden
of proving that the petitioner will be a safe and responsible driver. The
Secretary will consider the petitioner's motivation for consuming
near-alcoholic beverages, the circumstances under which they are consumed
(when, where, why, with whom and how often), the strength of the petitioner's
support system, the petitioner's degree of acceptance of the
alcoholism/chemical dependency, and whether near-alcoholic beverages were ever
used in the past (and whether this use occurred before or after the commission
of a DUI). The petitioner carries the burden of proving that the use of
near-alcoholic beverages is not a matter of concern.
8) When considering the renewal of an RDP for
a petitioner classified as High Risk Dependent who currently utilizes a BAIID,
the petitioner shall not be denied relief solely because the petitioner has
failed to maintain abstinence.
f) Documentation of Non-Problematic Use
1) Petitioners classified as High Risk
Nondependent must demonstrate at least 12 consecutive months of non-problematic
alcohol use, or abstinence, and abstinence from the use of illegal drugs. This
evidence must be submitted from at least 3 independent sources and generally
comply with the standards set forth in subsection (e).
2) Waivers are discretionary when considering
an RDP, but shall not be granted unless the petitioner demonstrates at least 6
months of non-problematic alcohol use, or abstinence, and abstinence from the
use of illegal drugs.
g)
Documentation of Support/Recovery Program
1)
If the petitioner has been attending a support/recovery program, the petitioner
must present at least 3 dated and signed letters or witness testimony from
fellow support/recovery program members documenting at a minimum the following:
A) How long the person has known the
petitioner;
B) How long the person
knows that the petitioner has attended the program;
C) How often the petitioner attends the
program.
2) The hearing
officer shall determine the weight to be accorded the documentation, taking
into account the credibility of the source and the totality of the evidence
adduced at the hearing. Each letter must be dated and signed by its authors.
All letters must be submitted in their original form and should be dated no
more than 45 days prior to the hearing date. Telephone facsimiles and
photocopies of original letters will be admitted into evidence pending the
submission of the original within a reasonable number of days as determined by
the presiding hearing officer. The petitioner's failure to maintain strict
compliance with these requirements shall not be the sole basis for withdrawing
from a hearing or denying relief.
h) Internet Support/Recovery Programs. A
petitioner's participation in internet Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics
Anonymous or other support/recovery program "chat rooms" or any other
support/recovery program services available over the internet may be an
acceptable substitute for the regular attendance of meetings in person. The
factors to be considered by the hearing officer and the Secretary in evaluating
the effectiveness and probative value of this form of support include, but are
not limited to, the following: the petitioner's reasons for not attending
meetings in person; the petitioner's alcohol/drug use history and history of
relapse; the length of the petitioner's abstinence at the time of the hearing;
the proximity of A.A. and N.A. meetings to the petitioner's residence and
workplace; the petitioner's physical/medical condition, as it affects the
ability to travel; the availability of public and private transportation to
meetings; whether the petitioner has attended meetings in person in the past,
and the length of that attendance; whether the petitioner's evaluator and
treatment provider are aware and approve of the petitioner's participation in
this form of support; the extent of the petitioner's knowledge of, commitment
to, and involvement in the program; the extent of the petitioner's knowledge of
the disease process of alcoholism/chemical dependence; the extent of the
petitioner's acceptance of the alcoholism/chemical dependence. The
participation in internet support/recovery program chat rooms is not favored by
the Secretary of State. Therefore, substantial documentation and testimony
regarding this method of support is required in order for the petitioner to
carry the burden of proof on this issue, including identification of the
specific websites that the petitioner uses and verification of the petitioner's
participation by chat room members.
i) Non-Traditional Support/Recovery Programs
1) If the petitioner's support/recovery
program does not involve a structured, organized, recognized program such as
A.A. or N.A., the petitioner is required to identify what that program is and
explain how it works and keeps petitioner abstinent. The petitioner is required
to present either witness testimony or written verification of the program from
at least three independent sources involved in the program. If the verification
is in the form of letters, those letters should be signed and dated. All such
evidence must contain, at a minimum, the following:
A) The person's relationship to the
petitioner (friend, family member, fellow employee, etc.);
B) How long the person has known the
petitioner;
C) How often the person
sees the petitioner (daily, weekly, monthly, etc.);
D) How the person is involved in the
petitioner's recovery program and what role the person plays in helping the
petitioner abstain from alcohol/drugs;
E) What changes the person has seen in the
petitioner since petitioner's abstinence.
2) The hearing officer shall determine the
weight to be accorded the documentation, taking into account the credibility of
the source and the totality of the evidence adduced at the hearing. Each letter
must be dated and signed by its authors. All letters must be submitted in their
original form and should be dated no more than 45 days prior to the hearing
date. Telephone facsimiles and photocopies of original letters will be admitted
into evidence pending the submission of the original within a reasonable number
of days as determined by the presiding hearing officer.
j) Support/Recovery Program Sponsor. If the
petitioner has a support/recovery program sponsor, a letter should be obtained
(or the testimony submitted) from the sponsor documenting the data in
subsection (g)(1). The purpose of a letter or the testimony of an A.A. sponsor
is to provide the Secretary with substantial detail regarding the petitioner's
progress and development in the A.A. program. However, this letter or testimony
can also be used to satisfy the requirements of subsection (g). The submission
of a letter from a petitioner's sponsor is not mandatory, but is strongly
recommended. A petitioner's failure to submit a letter from the sponsor is not,
by itself, a sufficient basis upon which to deny driving relief.
k) RDP for Support/Recovery Program -
Information Required. In cases in which a petitioner seeks an RDP to allow
driving to support/recovery program meetings, the petitioner must provide
specific information identifying, at a minimum, the following:
1) The locations of the meetings the
petitioner wishes to attend;
2) The
days of the week when meetings are held at these locations;
3) The hours of the day when these meetings
are held.
l) Early
Intervention - Information Required. If the petitioner has undergone early
intervention (Moderate Risk classification), the petitioner must provide a
narrative summary that includes, at a minimum, the following:
1) The name, address and telephone number of
the licensed service provider;
2)
The dates the petitioner began and completed early intervention, as well as the
number of days or hours the petitioner was involved in the intervention
process;
3) A summary discussion of
the intervention provided and its outcome, specifically, those issues that were
addressed or explored and the provider's perception of what the petitioner
gained from the experience and the petitioner's ability to avoid future
development of alcohol problems;
4)
The rationale for any modification in the early intervention requirements
specified by DSUPR;
5) The dated
signature of the professional staff person providing the early intervention
information; and
6) The narrative
summary shall be composed on the treatment provider's letterhead
stationery.
m) Treatment
- Information Required. If the petitioner has had alcohol or drug related
treatment, the petitioner must provide the information listed in this
subsection (m). A petitioner is required only to submit proof of the most
recent primary treatment experience.
1) A
narrative summary that includes, at a minimum:
A) The name, address and telephone number of
treatment center;
B) The date the
petitioner entered primary treatment and the date the petitioner was discharged
from treatment; the number of days or hours the petitioner was involved in
treatment; the admitting and discharge diagnosis;
C) The type of treatment received (e.g.,
outpatient, intensive outpatient or inpatient treatment; individual or group
therapy);
D) A clinical impression
or prognosis of either a Moderate or Significant Risk petitioner's ability to
maintain a non-problematic pattern, or a High Risk petitioner's ability to
maintain a stable recovery where applicable. Specifically, the treatment
provider's perception of what the petitioner gained from the treatment
experience and whether the experience was sufficient to substantially minimize
the possibility of a recurrence of alcohol/drug related problems;
E) Any recommendations for continuing care or
follow-up support, and an indication of the petitioner's participation, if
applicable;
F) The rationale for
any modification in the treatment requirements specified by DSUPR;
G) The dated signature of the professional
staff person providing the treatment information.
2) Copies of the following documents required
by DSUPR:
A) Individualized Treatment Plan.
(See 77 Ill. Adm. Code
2060.421.)
B) Discharge Summary and Continuing Care
Plan. (See 77 Ill. Adm. Code
2060.427.)
3) A current status report
regarding the petitioner's involvement in continuing care. The Continuing Care
Status Report must discuss the petitioner's level of progress in completing
follow-up activities outlined in the Continuing Care Plan. It may be composed
by either the evaluator or the treatment provider, and shall be composed on the
letterhead stationery of the agency or individual who authored the report. If
continuing care has been completed, a final summary report must be provided
that discusses the petitioner's progress throughout the course of completing
all follow-up activities detailed in the Continuing Care Plan. If continuing
care has been determined to be unnecessary, a report must be provided that
discusses the clinical rationale for that decision. This waiver may be composed
only by the treatment provider.
4)
The Department reserves the discretion to require a petitioner to submit a
Treatment Needs Assessment or a waiver of treatment as a consequence of a
petitioner being unable to provide documentation of treatment. If the
petitioner and the evaluator or treatment provider are unable to provide the
required information or treatment documents, they must provide documentary
evidence of their attempts to obtain the information and the reason for its
unavailability.
5) The information
required in subsection (m)(1) should be provided in the "Treatment
Verification" form composed, published and distributed to treatment providers
as a courtesy by the Department. However, a petitioner's failure to submit a
Treatment Verification form is not a sufficient basis, in and of itself, to
deny driving relief, so long as the information required in subsection (m)(1)
is submitted in some other format or in the other documents required to be
submitted.
n) Evaluation
Written for Court. If a petitioner presents an alcohol/drug evaluation that was
obtained for the purpose of being sentenced on a DUI charge or some other
traffic or criminal offense, that evaluation must meet the requirements of this
Section in order to be accepted by the Secretary of State.