Request for full driver’s license restoration; Grant of a restricted driver’s license with a breath alcohol ignition interlock device (BAIID) requirement; A Secretary of State (SOS) hearing officer’s authority; MI Admin Code, R 257.313(1)(a); Findings of fact & conclusions of law requirement; MCL 257.322(5); Circuit court review of a hearing officer’s decision; MCL 257.323(4)(a); Heimler v Secretary of State (Unpub); Operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OWI); Driver’s License Appeal Division (DLAD)

The court concluded that while “the scope of a circuit court’s review of DLAD decisions is limited, the circuit court” here did not apply the proper standards of review under MCL 257.323(4)(a)(iv) and (v). Thus, it vacated the order dismissing the case and remanded it to the circuit court for proper review of the SOS hearing officer’s decision. Plaintiff’s driver’s license was revoked in 2016 after two OWI convictions. In 2023, he requested full driver’s license restoration and had a hearing before an SOS officer in the DLAD. The hearing officer instead granted him a restricted license requiring him to operate a vehicle equipped with a BAIID. The court noted that “the administrative order specifically stated that ‘based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the record,’ the original license revocation had been modified and a restricted license was approved.” But the hearing transcript lacked “any statements of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Moreover, the record made by the hearing officer offered strong support for a finding that plaintiff’s alcohol abuse disorder remained under control and that the risk of him repeating alcoholic abusive behavior was low. Yet, the hearing officer generically ordered installation of” a BAIID. The court found that “plaintiff had a strong argument to present to the circuit court on appeal.” The circuit court stated that he “is ‘a good candidate’ to have his license fully restored” but found that it was “bound by published case law and it has ‘concern’ regarding its ‘appeal hearing powers’ pursuant to MCL 257.322.” The court held that MCL 257.323(4)(a)(iv) and (v) “clearly give a circuit court the power to set aside an administrative agency’s decision if it concludes that the hearing officer’s decision was ‘[n]ot supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record,’ or whether it was ‘arbitrary, capricious, or clearly an abuse or unwarranted exercise of discretion.’” Further, the circuit court erroneously stated “it was bound by the ‘published’ decision in Heimler” – that is in fact an unpublished opinion and not binding. The court noted that “courts may consider unpublished opinions for their instructive or persuasive value. . . . However, the circuit court did not use Heimler in a persuasive manner, but instead adamantly insisted that it is bound by it. Contrary to the circuit court’s conclusion, it did have the authority to review the hearing officer’s decision.”