1 Colo. Code Regs. § 211-3-4
Current through Register Vol. 47, No. 20, October 25, 2024
Rule 1 CCR 211-3-4 - PDL CONSIDERATIONBasis and Purpose: This rule is promulgated pursuant to §§ 24-1-107, 24-1-117, 24-35-103, 42-1-102(24), 42-1-201, 42-1-204, 42-2-126(3)(b), 42-2-127, and 42-2-127.9, C.R.S. The purpose of this rule is to describe certain factors that a Hearing Officer must consider when deciding whether to issue a PDL in an administrative proceeding before the Division regarding a driver's license. It also clarifies Hearing Officer discretion to include an Interlock requirement as part of a PDL.
A. When exercising discretion to issue a PDL pursuant to Title 42, C.R.S., the Hearing Officer shall consider public safety as well as modification of Respondent's future driving behavior in determining whether it is appropriate to issue a PDL. The Hearing Officer must consider the Respondent's driving history as a whole. The Hearing Officer shall have discretion in determining the weight to be given any aggravating or mitigating factor listed in Rule 3. The aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in Rule 3 shall be the primary basis used for determining whether to issue a PDL.B. For PDLs issued in hearings conducted pursuant to § 42-2-127, C.R.S. where the license is suspended, in part, due to a conviction for DUI, DWAI, DUI per se, or UDD pursuant to § 42-2-127.9, C.R.S., the Hearing Officer may only deny a PDL if there is a statutory reason for denial or if aggravating circumstances exist in the Driver Record, or as presented at the hearing, showing Respondent is unsafe to drive for any reason. The Hearing Officer shall make specific findings to support such denial of the PDL.C. For PDLs granted to Respondents with existing Interlock restricted licenses, Respondents who would have this restriction upon reinstatement of the Respondent's privilege, or Respondents who are persistent drunk drivers as defined in § 42-1-102 (68.5), C.R.S., the PDLs must include the Interlock requirement. The Hearing Officer has the discretion to impose an Interlock requirement in the PDL in other circumstances when deemed reasonable and necessary upon evidence showing the Respondent's history of alcohol-related convictions and/or Restraints, even though the Interlock restriction may no longer be statutorily mandated.46 CR 20, October 25, 2023, effective 11/29/202347 CR 07, April 10, 2024, effective 5/1/2024