A DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) DUI/DWI hearing is an administrative hearing to determine whether the state should suspend the license (driving privileges) of a driver who has been charged with DUI/DWI. This hearing is also known as an “administrative per se” or “admin per se” hearing or an “administrative license revocation” or ALR hearing, and generally must be requested within a matter of days following the DUI/DWI arrest to challenge the automatic suspension of the driver’s license.

A defendant has the right to be represented by an attorney at such a DMV hearing—but unlike the criminal prosecution portion of a DUI/DWI charge, a defendant does not have a Constitutional right to counsel in an administrative DMV hearing and must hire an attorney (or be self-represented or pro se), as the state will not appoint an attorney to represent the defendant.

Laws regarding DMV hearings for driver’s license suspensions or revocations in DUI/DWI cases vary from state to state—including procedures and deadlines—and are generally located in a state’s statutes—often in the vehicle code, penal or criminal code, or administrative code.

In North Dakota, a DUI/DWI charge triggers an administrative process separate from the criminal case, which is handled by the Department of Transportation (ND DOT) rather than the DMV. This process involves an Administrative License Suspension (ALS) hearing to determine whether the driver's license should be suspended due to the charge. The accused individual must request this hearing within ten days of the Notice of Intended Suspension, which is typically served at the time of arrest. Failure to request the hearing within this timeframe will result in an automatic suspension. At the ALS hearing, the driver has the right to be represented by an attorney, but unlike in criminal court, there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel. Therefore, if the driver wishes to have legal representation, they must hire an attorney at their own expense or choose to represent themselves. The ALS hearing is a critical opportunity to challenge the suspension, and the outcome is based on the balance of evidence rather than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard used in criminal court.