Summary. A drunk driving case is two cases on different clocks — a criminal prosecution, and an administrative license proceeding with a hearing deadline that is often ten days and is missed constantly. This article covers what justifies a stop, checkpoints, field sobriety testing, the constitutional line between breath and blood, implied consent and refusal, what a per se limit proves, drug cases, and the collateral consequences that frequently exceed the sentence.

More Americans are arrested for driving under the influence than for any other offense except simple drug possession. It is the crime that most often happens to people who have never been arrested for anything — and that is precisely why it is so frequently mishandled by the people it happens to.

The most common and most expensive error has nothing to do with the criminal charge. It is missing the deadline to request an administrative hearing on the license suspension, which in many states is ten days from the arrest and which runs whether or not anyone has explained it. The license is suspended by an agency, on an administrative record, under a preponderance standard, entirely independently of whether the criminal case is dismissed. People who focus on the criminal case and ignore the paperwork handed to them at the station lose their license before the first court date.

This article covers both tracks, in the order they arise.

Part I: The stop

Everything downstream depends on whether the officer was lawfully there.

Reasonable suspicion — specific, articulable facts suggesting criminal activity — justifies a brief investigative stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). For a vehicle, any observed traffic violation suffices, and Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) holds that the officer's actual motive is irrelevant so long as a violation occurred — which is why so many DUI investigations begin with a burned-out plate light.

Random stops are not permitted. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) held that stopping a car to check a license and registration, absent reasonable suspicion, violates the Fourth Amendment — while noting that systematic, non-discretionary checkpoints are a different matter.

Anonymous tips can supply reasonable suspicion. In Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014), a 911 caller reported being run off the road by a specific truck; the Court held the tip bore adequate indicia of reliability — an eyewitness account of a discrete incident, made contemporaneously through the 911 system, describing dangerous driving that suggested impairment.

Checkpoints are constitutional if properly conducted. Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) upheld sobriety checkpoints under a balancing analysis, given the magnitude of the drunk driving problem and the brief, minimally intrusive nature of the stop. The conditions that matter in practice: supervisory decisionmaking rather than field discretion, a neutral formula for which vehicles are stopped, adequate safety and lighting, advance publicity in most states, and a brief detention. A checkpoint run by officers choosing cars at will is challengeable. Several states prohibit checkpoints entirely under their own constitutions.

Duration. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) held that a stop may last no longer than necessary to complete the mission that justified it — and that extending it, even briefly, to conduct an unrelated investigation requires independent reasonable suspicion. In a DUI case, the question becomes: at what moment did the officer have reasonable suspicion of impairment, and what happened after the traffic mission was, or should have been, complete?

Part II: The roadside investigation

Observations. The officer's report will recite the familiar catalogue: odor of alcohol, bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech, flushed face, fumbling for documents, admission of drinking. Each is individually consistent with innocence — allergies, fatigue, a long shift, anxiety at being stopped — and the defense is usually about the aggregate rather than any single item.

Field sobriety tests. Three tests are standardized, with validation studies behind them:

  • Horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) — involuntary jerking of the eye as it tracks a stimulus. Six possible clues. Its admissibility varies substantially by state; some admit it as scientific evidence with a foundation, some as an observation only, some exclude it.
  • Walk and turn — nine heel-to-toe steps, a turn, nine back. Eight clues.
  • One leg stand — foot six inches off the ground, count for thirty seconds. Four clues.

Where these go wrong, and where defense work concentrates: administration that departs from the standardized protocol (the validation studies assume exact administration); age, weight, and injury (the training materials themselves flag age above 65, weight above a threshold, and back, leg, or inner-ear conditions); footwear; the surface — gravel, a slope, a shoulder beside passing traffic; conditions — cold, rain, wind, headlights and strobes; and nerves. Non-standardized tests — reciting the alphabet, counting backward, finger-to-nose — have no validation and are attacked on that basis.

They are voluntary in most states. Refusing field sobriety tests is not the same as refusing a chemical test and generally carries no automatic license penalty, though the refusal may be commented on and may itself contribute to probable cause.

Preliminary breath test (PBT). A handheld device used at the roadside to establish probable cause. In most states the numeric result is not admissible at trial on the question of impairment, only on probable cause — a distinction that matters and that is frequently blurred.

Miranda. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) held that an ordinary traffic stop is not custody for Miranda purposes, so roadside questioning generally does not require warnings — but that once a driver is subjected to treatment rendering them "in custody," the protections attach. And Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990) drew a further line: slurred speech and physical performance are non-testimonial and admissible without warnings, while a question whose answer requires the suspect to communicate the contents of their mind (the Court's example: asking the date of his sixth birthday) is testimonial and does require them.

Part III: Chemical testing, and the constitutional line

This is where the modern law of DUI has moved most.

A warrantless blood draw generally requires a warrant. Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) rejected the argument that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream is a per se exigency justifying a warrantless draw in every case. Exigency is assessed on the totality of the circumstances, case by case, and the availability of telephonic and electronic warrants matters to that assessment.

Breath and blood are treated differently. Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016) held that a breath test may be administered as a search incident to a lawful arrest without a warrant — it is minimally intrusive, reveals only blood alcohol concentration, and leaves no biological sample — but that a blood draw may not, because it pierces the skin and yields a sample from which much more can be learned. The consequence is the holding that matters most: a state may criminalize refusal of a breath test, but may not criminalize refusal of a blood test. Civil consequences for refusing a blood test — license suspension — remain permissible.

Unconscious drivers. Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 588 U.S. 840 (2019) held, in a plurality opinion, that when a driver is unconscious and cannot be given a breath test, the exigent circumstances doctrine will almost always permit a warrantless blood draw — with a narrow opportunity for the defendant to show that his blood would not have been drawn anyway and that police could not have obtained a warrant without materially interfering with other pressing duties.

Implied consent. Every state conditions the privilege of driving on consent to chemical testing upon lawful arrest. Refusal triggers administrative consequences — a license suspension that is often longer than the suspension for failing the test, and that in many states applies even if the criminal charge is later dismissed. South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (1983) held that admitting evidence of a refusal at trial does not violate the privilege against self-incrimination, because the choice offered is not an impermissibly coercive one.

The practical calculus of refusing is genuinely difficult and depends on the state: a longer suspension and refusal evidence at trial, against denying the prosecution a number. It should not be decided at the roadside on general advice, and many states permit a brief opportunity to consult counsel before deciding.

Part IV: What the number proves, and how it is attacked

Per se offenses. Every state makes it a crime to drive with a blood alcohol concentration at or above 0.08, without any additional proof of impairment. Most states have an enhanced tier at 0.15 or 0.16, a 0.04 limit for commercial drivers, and a zero tolerance limit — typically 0.00 to 0.02 — for drivers under 21. A person can be convicted of the per se offense while driving perfectly.

Impairment offenses are the alternative theory: driving while under the influence to a degree that renders the person incapable of safe operation. These do not require a test at all, and they are how refusal cases are prosecuted.

Attacking a breath result. The recurring grounds: the instrument's calibration and maintenance records; the required observation period (typically 15 to 20 minutes to ensure no belching, regurgitation, or oral intake, which can produce mouth alcohol and a falsely elevated reading); the operator's certification; radio frequency interference; whether two samples agreed within tolerance; the machine's inherent margin of error, which matters enormously in a 0.08 or 0.09 case; and physiological conditions — acid reflux, diabetes and ketosis, a low-carbohydrate diet, dental work retaining fluid.

Attacking a blood result. Chain of custody; whether the draw was performed by a qualified person; the swab used (an alcohol swab at the site is a classic issue); whether the tube contained the correct preservative and anticoagulant and was properly inverted; storage temperature and time, which can permit fermentation in a poorly preserved sample; laboratory accreditation and analyst qualification; and the difference between whole blood and serum or plasma results, which run measurably higher and must be converted.

Rising blood alcohol is the perennial defense: the person was below the limit while driving and above it by the time of the test, because absorption was still occurring. It requires the timeline — last drink, stop time, test time — and usually an expert to do the retrograde extrapolation, which the prosecution will do in the other direction.

Part V: Drug-impaired driving

Drug cases work differently and are increasingly common.

There is no reliable per se limit for most drugs. Some states have adopted per se THC limits; the science supporting a concentration-to-impairment relationship for cannabis is contested, and metabolites can persist for weeks after any impairment has passed. A few states have zero-tolerance statutes making any detectable amount of a controlled substance or its metabolite unlawful while driving — which criminalizes driving days after use.

Drug recognition experts (DREs) conduct a standardized twelve-step evaluation — breath test, interview, eye examinations, divided-attention tests, vital signs, dark room examination of pupil sizes, muscle tone, injection site examination, and a toxicology sample — and opine as to the drug category causing impairment. The evaluation's admissibility and the weight it carries vary substantially, and it is the focus of most litigation in these cases.

Prescription medication is not a defense to driving while impaired. A validly prescribed drug taken as directed can still support a conviction if it impaired the driver, and the warning label on the bottle is frequently Exhibit A.

Part VI: The two proceedings

The administrative license case begins at the arrest. In most states the officer confiscates the license and issues a temporary permit together with a notice of suspension.

  • The deadline to request a hearing is short — often 7, 10, or 15 days, and it is printed on a form handed to someone who has just been released from custody at 3 a.m. Missing it usually forfeits the hearing entirely.
  • The standard is a preponderance of the evidence, and the issues are narrow: was the stop lawful, was there probable cause to arrest, was the implied consent advisory given, and did the person refuse or test above the limit.
  • The outcome is independent of the criminal case. A dismissal or acquittal does not automatically restore the license.
  • A hardship, occupational, or restricted license may be available for driving to work, school, medical appointments, and treatment — usually conditioned on an ignition interlock.

The criminal case follows the ordinary sequence — arraignment, discovery, motions, plea negotiation, trial, sentencing. See The Criminal Case from Arrest to Appeal.

The motions that matter in a DUI case: suppression of the stop (no reasonable suspicion); suppression of the arrest (no probable cause); suppression of the test (unlawful blood draw under McNeely and Birchfield, defective implied consent advisory, or violation of the observation period); exclusion of HGN for want of foundation; exclusion of a DRE opinion; and a challenge to the extension of the stop under Rodriguez.

Part VII: Consequences, which usually exceed the sentence

Criminal. A first offense is typically a misdemeanor: fines and substantial court costs, probation, alcohol education or treatment, community service, and in many states a short mandatory jail term or its alternative. Second and subsequent offenses escalate sharply, with mandatory minimums.

Felony exposure arises from: a specified number of prior offenses within a lookback period; a child in the vehicle; a high BAC in some states; driving on a suspended license; serious bodily injury; and death, which is charged as vehicular homicide or DUI manslaughter and carries years to decades.

License. Suspension or revocation, an ignition interlock requirement that in a growing number of states applies to all offenders including first-time offenders, a reinstatement fee, and a proof-of-insurance filing (SR-22 or equivalent) for several years.

Insurance. The largest financial consequence for most people: premiums frequently double or triple for three to five years, and the aggregate increase commonly exceeds every fine and fee combined.

Employment. Loss of a commercial driver's license — a CDL holder faces a one-year disqualification for a first offense and lifetime disqualification for a second, and the CDL limit is 0.04, and a disqualification can follow a DUI in a personal vehicle. Professional licensing boards for nurses, physicians, pilots, lawyers, and teachers have reporting requirements and their own discipline. Employers with driving requirements, and any position requiring a security clearance, are affected.

Immigration. A single DUI is generally not a crime involving moral turpitude and generally not a deportable offense standing alone, but aggravating facts change the analysis — driving on a suspended license, a child in the car, injury, or multiple convictions — and a DUI can affect discretionary relief, bond, naturalization's good moral character requirement, and admissibility for visa holders. Any non-citizen facing a DUI should consult immigration counsel before entering any plea.

Travel. Canada in particular treats impaired driving as serious criminality and may refuse entry for years.

Part VIII: How a DUI case is actually built and taken apart

Doctrine describes the rules. The work is documentary, and it runs in a predictable order.

Get the whole file, not the report. The narrative report is the prosecution's summary. What matters is underneath it: body-worn and dashboard camera footage (which frequently contradicts the report on how the field tests were administered and how the driver actually spoke and walked); the CAD dispatch log with timestamps; the booking video; the instrument maintenance and calibration records for the breath machine, usually for a defined period before and after; the certification of the operator; the observation period documentation; the implied consent advisory form with the times recorded; the tow and inventory records; and, for a blood case, the phlebotomy record, the chain of custody, the lab's accreditation and the analyst's qualifications, and the raw chromatography data rather than the one-page report.

Build a timeline to the minute. Last drink; time of driving; stop time from CAD; first contact; each field test; arrest; transport; arrival; observation period start; first test; second test. Two things fall out of an accurate timeline more often than from anything else: an observation period that was shorter than the protocol requires, and a rising blood alcohol argument that the raw times support.

Watch the video against the report. The recurring findings: an instruction given incorrectly or incompletely; the test performed on a slope, on gravel, or in traffic; a "clue" recorded that the video does not show; speech described as slurred that is audible and clear; a driver described as unsteady who walks normally to the patrol car. This is where most suppression motions and most acquittals come from, and it costs nothing but time.

The suppression motions, in order of value:

  1. The stop. No traffic violation, or a violation that did not occur as described (the video shows the signal was used, the lane was not crossed). If the stop fails, everything after it is suppressed as fruit under Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).
  2. The extension. Under Rodriguez, the moment the traffic mission was complete, continued detention required independent reasonable suspicion of impairment. Identify that moment on the video.
  3. The arrest. Probable cause built on a thin catalogue of observations, several of which the video refutes.
  4. The test. A blood draw without a warrant and without genuine exigency under McNeely; a blood draw obtained by threatening criminal penalties for refusal, which Birchfield forbids; a defective or untimely implied consent advisory; a violated observation period.
  5. The checkpoint, where applicable: field discretion rather than a supervisory plan, no neutral formula, no publicity where required.
  6. The expert opinions. HGN without adequate foundation; a DRE opinion offered beyond the evaluation's validated scope.

What the prosecution will do. Retrograde extrapolation to place the BAC above the limit at the time of driving; a criminalist to explain the instrument's reliability; and, in a refusal case, an argument that the refusal itself evidences consciousness of guilt — permissible after Neville.

Part IX: Resolution — what a plea actually costs

The overwhelming majority of these cases resolve by plea, and the negotiation has more moving parts than the charge.

What is negotiable: the charge itself (a reduction to reckless driving — "wet reckless" — or to a non-alcohol offense where the evidence supports it); whether a prior counts within the lookback period; the fine and costs; jail versus alternatives (work release, house arrest, electronic monitoring, community service); the length of probation and its conditions; the treatment requirement; and, in some states, whether the plea will support a later expungement.

What is usually not negotiable: the administrative license suspension, which is an agency matter, and the mandatory minimums the legislature has attached.

Diversion and deferred adjudication exist in a minority of states for first offenses — a period of compliance, after which the charge is dismissed. Where available, ask about it first; where not available, do not assume the prosecutor is refusing something they can give.

Five consequences to price into any plea, because they routinely exceed the sentence:

  1. Insurance. Three to five years of substantially higher premiums, frequently totaling more than every fine, fee, and lawyer's bill combined.
  2. The interlock, its installation, and its monthly cost.
  3. Employment. A CDL disqualification of a year for a first offense — and the CDL limit is 0.04, and the disqualification can follow a DUI in a personal vehicle. Professional boards, driving-required jobs, and clearances each have their own reporting duty and their own timeline.
  4. Immigration. Consult immigration counsel before the plea. A single simple DUI is generally not a deportable offense standing alone, but aggravating facts change the analysis, and the plea's precise wording can matter more than the sentence.
  5. Record. Many states exclude DUI from expungement entirely; some allow it after a waiting period; and the driving record retains it for a lookback period regardless. Ask what the plea will look like in seven years.

Part X: Prevention, and the parts people get wrong

Two practical points are worth stating plainly, because they are widely misunderstood and they prevent most of what this article describes.

"One drink an hour" is not a rule. Elimination is roughly linear at about 0.015 per hour, but the peak reached depends on body composition, sex, food, medication, and drink strength — and a modern craft beer or a restaurant pour is not a standard drink. A 145-pound person who has three drinks in ninety minutes is plausibly at or above 0.08. Portable personal breath testers are inexpensive and are more reliable than arithmetic, though they are not evidence.

Sleeping it off in the car is a real risk. Many states criminalize being in actual physical control of a vehicle while impaired, and the classic conviction is a person asleep in the driver's seat with the keys in reach and the engine off. If the choice is genuinely between driving and the car, get in the back seat, put the keys in the trunk, and do not run the engine — but understand that in some states even that is chargeable, and that a rideshare, a taxi, or a friend costs less than any of it.

Part X-A: Three arrests, three different cases

The 0.09 breath case. A driver is stopped for a lane deviation at 12:40 a.m., admits to "a couple of beers with dinner," performs adequately on the walk-and-turn, and tests at 0.09 at 1:52 a.m. — seventy-two minutes after the stop.

Where the case is. The margin. A 0.09 result on an instrument with an inherent uncertainty is a very different case from a 0.16, and the maintenance and calibration records are worth obtaining before anything else. The seventy-two-minute gap invites a rising blood alcohol argument if the last drink was close to the stop — which requires the receipt, the credit card timestamp, and the companion who can testify when the last drink was poured. And the observation period must be verified against the video and the log: if the officer left the room or the driver belched inside the window, the result is attackable at its foundation.

The refusal case. A driver refuses the breath test after arrest. There is no number.

Where the case is. The prosecution proceeds on an impairment theory, built entirely on the officer's observations, the field tests, and the refusal itself — admissible under Neville and argued as consciousness of guilt. The defense is the video: whether the driving was actually erratic, whether the tests were administered as trained, whether the described slurring is audible. Meanwhile the administrative case is the more urgent one, because a refusal suspension is frequently longer than a failure suspension and applies even if the criminal charge is dismissed. The hearing request goes in on day one.

The cannabis case. A driver is stopped for a broken taillight at 9 p.m., is calm and coherent, admits using cannabis "earlier," and a blood test returns THC and a metabolite.

Where the case is. The relationship between concentration and impairment. Metabolites persist long after any impairment has passed, and in a zero-tolerance state the mere presence of a metabolite may complete the offense — which is a legislative choice, not a scientific one, and worth saying to a jury where the state's statute permits an impairment defense. If a drug recognition expert conducted an evaluation, the twelve steps are examined against the protocol, and the opinion is challenged where it exceeds the evaluation's validated scope. And the stop itself matters: a taillight justifies a stop, but under Rodriguez it does not justify a thirty-minute drug investigation absent independent reasonable suspicion.

Part X-B: If someone was hurt

A DUI involving injury or death is a categorically different matter, and the ordinary advice in this article does not carry over.

The exposure changes completely. Serious bodily injury converts a misdemeanor into a felony in every state, with prison exposure measured in years. A death is charged as vehicular homicide, DUI manslaughter, or in aggravated circumstances as murder, and the sentences run from several years to decades. Charging decisions are made by supervisors, not line prosecutors, and the case will be investigated by a reconstruction team rather than a patrol officer.

The evidence-gathering is immediate and adverse. Expect a warrant for blood within the hour, a full accident reconstruction with scene measurements and total station survey, download of the vehicle's event data recorder (which stores speed, throttle, braking, and belt use in the seconds before impact), phone records to establish distraction, and canvassing for witnesses and video. Independent reconstruction and an independent download should be arranged quickly, because scenes are cleared and vehicles are released or destroyed.

The parallel proceedings multiply. There will be a criminal case, an administrative license case, a civil wrongful death or personal injury suit, and an insurer with a duty to defend and a policy limit that is almost certainly inadequate. Anything said in the civil case can be used in the criminal case, which is why the civil matter is usually stayed or the defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment in it — a decision that requires both lawyers to coordinate. See Car Accident and Personal Injury Claims and Proving Damages in Civil Litigation.

Causation becomes the contested element. Impairment alone does not establish that the impairment caused the collision. Where the other driver ran the light, where a pedestrian stepped from between parked cars, where a mechanical failure contributed, the reconstruction is where the case is won or lost — and several states require proof that the impairment was a proximate cause rather than merely that an impaired person was driving.

Two things to do immediately. Retain counsel before speaking to anyone, including your own insurer beyond the bare notice the policy requires. And preserve the vehicle: send a written litigation hold to the insurer and the tow yard before it is released, because once it is gone the event data recorder and the physical evidence are gone with it.

Part X-C: Drivers with special exposure

Four categories of driver face consequences that dwarf the ordinary case, and each requires advice on a different clock.

Commercial drivers. The limit is 0.04, not 0.08, and the federal disqualification rules at 49 C.F.R. Part 383 operate independently of any state criminal outcome: one year of disqualification for a first offense (three years if hazardous materials were being transported), and lifetime disqualification for a second. Critically, a DUI in a personal vehicle triggers the disqualification, and so does a refusal. There is no hardship or occupational CDL. Most employers require notification within days under their own policies and under the federal drug and alcohol clearinghouse rules, and a driver who does not report may lose the job for the non-reporting rather than the arrest.

Non-citizens. A single simple DUI is generally neither a crime involving moral turpitude nor an aggravated felony, and standing alone it usually does not make a lawful permanent resident deportable. But the qualifiers do all the work: driving on a license suspended because of a prior DUI, a child in the vehicle, injury, multiple convictions, or a controlled-substance element can each change the classification. And even where removability is not triggered, a DUI affects bond, discretionary relief, the good moral character requirement for naturalization, and admissibility for visa holders returning from abroad. Consult immigration counsel before entering any plea — the words in the plea colloquy and the statute of conviction matter more than the sentence imposed.

Licensed professionals. Nurses, physicians, pharmacists, lawyers, teachers, pilots, engineers, and financial licensees generally face a self-reporting obligation with its own deadline — often 30 days from conviction, and in some professions from arrest. The board proceeding is separate, uses a lower standard of proof, and can result in discipline even where the criminal case resolves favorably. Pilots have a particularly short clock: a notification requirement running from the motor vehicle action itself, independent of the criminal case. Missing a reporting deadline is frequently treated more severely than the underlying conduct.

Drivers under 21. Zero-tolerance statutes set the limit at 0.00 to 0.02, and violation triggers a license suspension in every state — frequently through an administrative process with no criminal charge at all, and frequently with a suspension that outlasts what an adult would receive. College disciplinary proceedings, athletic eligibility, scholarship conditions, and study-abroad and visa applications each run separately. A parent's first question should be about the administrative hearing deadline, not the court date.

One rule covers all four. Tell your lawyer at the first meeting which category you fall into. The criminal case is often not the most consequential proceeding you are in, and the deadline that matters most may expire before your first court appearance.

Part XI: Frequently asked questions

Should I refuse the breath test? It depends on your state's refusal penalties, which are often harsher than the penalties for failing. There is no universal answer, and you may have a right to a brief call with counsel first. What is universal: be polite, do not argue, and do not explain.

Do I have to do the field sobriety tests? In most states they are voluntary and refusal carries no automatic license penalty — unlike refusing a chemical test after arrest.

Can I be convicted if I was under 0.08? Yes, on an impairment theory, and drug cases frequently proceed with no number at all.

Can I be charged if I was parked? Often yes. Many states criminalize being in "actual physical control" of a vehicle while impaired, and sleeping in the driver's seat with the keys accessible has produced convictions.

Will a DUI come off my record? Rarely. Many states exclude DUI from expungement entirely, and the driving record retains it for a lookback period even where the criminal record is sealed.

Is a first offense worth fighting? Given the license, insurance, employment, and immigration consequences — usually yes, at least to the point of reviewing the stop, the testing procedure, and the maintenance records.

How much does a DUI cost? All in — fines, costs, counsel, treatment, interlock, reinstatement, and insurance increases — commonly $10,000 to $25,000 for a first offense.

Part XII: For non-lawyers — what to do

  1. At the stop: be polite, provide license and registration, and say as little as possible. You are not required to answer where you have been or what you have had to drink.
  2. Write everything down as soon as you are able: the time, the location, what you were doing, what was said, how long each stage took, the weather and the surface, and what you had eaten and drunk and when.
  3. Find the paperwork you were given at release and read it for the license hearing deadline — often ten days. Calendar it today.
  4. Call a DUI lawyer within 24 hours, before that deadline. This is the single most consequential call.
  5. Request the administrative hearing even if you think you will lose it — it preserves the license and provides early discovery of the officer's testimony.
  6. Do not drive on a suspended license. It converts a misdemeanor case into a much worse one and is a common route to felony exposure.
  7. Gather the records: any receipt from the bar or restaurant, credit card statements showing timing, the names of anyone with you, and your medical conditions and prescriptions.
  8. Consider treatment or an education program voluntarily. Beginning before sentencing frequently improves the outcome.
  9. If you are not a U.S. citizen, consult immigration counsel before any plea.
  10. If you hold a CDL or a professional license, tell your lawyer immediately; the reporting obligations and deadlines are separate and often shorter.

Primary authority

Related documents

This article is educational and not legal advice. Per se limits, refusal penalties, administrative hearing deadlines, interlock requirements, and expungement eligibility vary substantially by state. If you have been arrested, consult counsel immediately — the license hearing deadline may be only days away.