Jump to content


Photo

Wrongfully Denied for "Court Ordered Treatment for Alcoholism"


  • Please log in to reply
194 replies to this topic

#31 Elmer Fudd

    CPA

  • Members
  • 5,899 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 13

Posted 25 May 2014 - 03:30 PM

I don't believe these types of Appeals are going to take that long they are a different kind of animal.

If the appeal is merely based upon a piece of paper from the judge saying that it wasn't treatment Molly I agree 100%. On the other hand, if they are going to be required to get a separate psych exam done to be reviewed I stand by my estimate. We could have a more detailed exchange on this if you think there is something I am missing. However, once they have to have something reviewed by the Mental Health Review Board the back log is staggering. My intention is not to be negative or scare anyone..just that I have been through this...well almost through it...fingers crossed.



#32 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 15,472 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 25 May 2014 - 03:43 PM

Yes, this topic is about wrongfully denied meaning somewhere in the process the court or the person doing the evaluation or DUI education of the applicant used the term "treatment" rather than evaluation or education.
 

This type of appeal usually involve securing all the proper documents and official statements from the court, evaluators, etc.; sending them in with the appeal, then waiting for the ISP appeal department to  verify and process.  This should take much less time than appeals requiring mental health evaluations.

 

We will be looking to see the policy and procedures developed by the ISP to handle this type of appeal.


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#33 IronSam

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 218 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 14

Posted 25 May 2014 - 06:44 PM

That's good to hear Molly, and thanks. It's not the wait so much as not knowing if it's even being addressed. Slayer's confirmation is reassuring in that regard. I've long given up on the call center after two promises of a supervisor call back that never came. Just to be clear on my eatlier post, my 5 months is total from the original application date of Jan 8.

 

All the different organizations certified by the State to handle the DUI classes likely never anticiapated the current CCL Law or it's use of terms, but the Legislature should have. Maybe it's part of the rush to pass the Law when it allows for a single DUI yet does not consider the required Classes. I don't think I'm self-biased in my view of the Legislature's intent here.

 

Keep Hope Alive!


Edited by IronSam, 25 May 2014 - 06:55 PM.


#34 slayer38115

  • Members
  • 41 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 14

Posted 25 May 2014 - 07:19 PM

There is a national criteria set for levels of substance abuse made by the American Psychiatric Association that the state of Illinois uses. It's called DSM IV. I would think all the courts and evaluators would use this criteria along with the counselors for DUI sentences.
The language used "should" be the same state wide.

As far as the info I received, I was very surprised to get a call back, especially that fast. It also shows that filling an appeal by email does work. Just have to make sure never to delete the sent email showing the date and time

#35 Elmer Fudd

    CPA

  • Members
  • 5,899 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 13

Posted 25 May 2014 - 07:58 PM

I absolutely understand the difference and its DSM V at this point I believe. The point that I was making is that the working assumption here is that ISP is going to be willing to follow the standard criteria when a DUI evaluation is done. One would think and hope that they will choose to accept pre-existing criteria and then it becomes a question of handing them the right piece of paper. However, having gone through the hat dance with them this is new territory, and should they choose to take the path of requesting independent psych evaluations all I was doing is articulating what that path requires. Lets hope that they do take the simpler approach however, don't be surprised if something else comes back. I certainly got bit by an unexpected surprise.....just a word of realism. 



#36 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 15,472 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 25 May 2014 - 08:17 PM

In my conversations with the CCL team, the focus will be on researching those who have been wrongfully denied and also developing a statewide standard terminology for all the courts to use.


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#37 Elmer Fudd

    CPA

  • Members
  • 5,899 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 13

Posted 25 May 2014 - 08:22 PM

In my conversations with the CCL team, the focus will be on researching those who have been wrongfully denied and also developing a statewide standard terminology for all the courts to use.

That is certainly what I would expect to here.....my comment, if anything was out of caution, when I started dealing with my own situation back in October last year there is no chance that I would have expected what I found, and I am merely seeking to share what I discovered. I think we will all breath a whole lot easier once the guidelines that ISP is working on are actually released. 



#38 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 15,472 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 25 May 2014 - 08:25 PM

 

. I think we will all breath a whole lot easier once the guidelines that ISP is working on are actually released. 

 

 

YES!!!


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#39 cls74

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,163 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 13

Posted 20 June 2014 - 08:29 AM

So pretty much anyone in Sangamon County who has had a DUI shouldn't even apply until they get their docket changed?

I don't even know where to begin on something like that, and I refuse to pay a single penny to have such done, I've already spent enough and have yet to take the training or apply until I am certain it is worthwhile to do so. If I have to go through the courts, that also equates to missed time at work to accommodate such.

Has anyone here started the process or successfully had such changes made? I stepped away from it all hoping not to be caught up in the initial wave of snafus and now have every thing but training, sounding like I might be better off caving in to IL ways and not applying.

Here is how it appears on Sangamon county court dockets. Apologies for any spacing issues, phone doesn't copy and paste well. It specifically says alcoholism treatment sentence in Force. It was the standard first time offender Evaluation, Educational classes and Victim Impact Panel class mandated for all first time offenders.


Disposition 01/00 Count 001 Fine & Cost Fee: $1,220.00

Signed Judge: MEHLICK Assistant State's Attorney: KIM Status: Dispositioned Report:

Terminated Jun 18, 2010 Disposition: Withhold Judgement/Supervision DRVG UNDER INFLU OF ALCOHO Disposition Type: Guilty Plea Defendant Plea: Guilty Statute 625 5/11-501(a)(2) Class A Orig. Sentence:

06/18/2010 Sentence: Fines and/or Costs/Penalties and Fees Sentence in Force

Sentence: Supervision 1Yrs Sentence in Force

Sentence: Alcoholism Treatment Sentence in Force

Fine & Cost 664.00 DUI SUPERVISION
50.00 CRIME STOPPERS 10.00 LOCAL DUI EQUIPMENT 92.00 VICTIM IMPACT PANEL 10.00 STATE DUI EQUIPIMENT 368.00 POLICE VEHICLE FEE 20.00 CLERK OP & ADMIN FE 5.50 REVIEW BOARD VEHICL .50

#40 IronSam

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 218 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 14

Posted 20 June 2014 - 10:30 AM

It's not likely that we as individuals can change the terminology and reporting systems of the Circuit Courts. The Courts and DUI Counciling Centers all have different languages and none had anticipated this new Law's use of those terms as prohibiting factors. Molly B. posted a thread that the ISP is looking to get that standardized. I think that until that is done, the ISP is going to deny on a case by case basis requiring an appeal to resolve it. Hopefully not. Have you applied and been denied, and by whom? Was there actual Treatment for Alcoholism or is that their generic term for DUI classes? Check with your supervision compliance officer, assuming you had one and where you took your classes. They can be helpful with clarification. The ISP made a call to my Compliance Officer to resolve the terms used by the ciruit court regarding Treatment of DUI's. The problem in Lake County is their use of the word Treatment. ISP has seized on Treatment as implying Alcoholism even when Alcoholism is not mentioned in court records or evaluation reports. If denied by ISP on those grounds, you must appeal to them within 60 days with any doucumtation to refute the Alcoholism aspect. My Compliance Officer and DUI class instructor agree that DUI classes ARE NOT treatment for alcoholism.

#41 cls74

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,163 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 13

Posted 20 June 2014 - 11:48 AM

It's not likely that we as individuals can change the terminology and reporting systems of the Circuit Courts. The Courts and DUI Counciling Centers all have different languages and none had anticipated this new Law's use of those terms as prohibiting factors. Molly B. posted a thread that the ISP is looking to get that standardized. I think that until that is done, the ISP is going to deny on a case by case basis requiring an appeal to resolve it. Hopefully not. Have you applied and been denied, and by whom? Was there actual Treatment for Alcoholism or is that their generic term for DUI classes? Check with your supervision compliance officer, assuming you had one and where you took your classes. They can be helpful with clarification. The ISP made a call to my Compliance Officer to resolve the terms used by the ciruit court regarding Treatment of DUI's. The problem in Lake County is their use of the word Treatment. ISP has seized on Treatment as implying Alcoholism even when Alcoholism is not mentioned in court records or evaluation reports. If denied by ISP on those grounds, you must appeal to them within 60 days with any doucumtation to refute the Alcoholism aspect. My Compliance Officer and DUI class instructor agree that DUI classes ARE NOT treatment for alcoholism.


Haven't applied because this came up quickly when skinnyb answered a question on the app that was misleading and since has been changed but was denied. After that the whole issue started being discussed whether the classes would be construed as treatment or not.

I had the evaluation which set the hours of classes needed and had to attend the victim impact panel. I did not have to do any of the alcoholism treatment such as talking with an hourly rated counseled or anything else. Basically the same thing you stated you took.

So the ISP actually took the initiative to contact people rather than making you do the leg work?

#42 cls74

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,163 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 13

Posted 20 June 2014 - 11:53 AM

I might add, I only posted in this to see if I should hold off on applying until this is resolved or is it simple enough procedure for a single DUI offense, no property damage, injuries or other factors, to get taken care of.

It sounded like the docket transcript was going to need changed for anyone needing it if and before the standard verbage is introduced.

#43 IronSam

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 218 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 14

Posted 20 June 2014 - 12:58 PM

I appealed their denial and did the legwork as it applied to me rather than wait, and hope, to see if ISP would investigate on my behalf for my benefit. I can't imagine the 100+ counties in the State to standardize the DUI reporting forms, both paper and digital, and DUI Education language any time soon as much of that is computerized. It may take less time to go through the application, possible ISP denial and appeal process. The court document example you posted, "Sentence: Alcoholism Treatment Sentence in Force" would most likely result in an ISP denial. It's my opinion based on conversations with my Court Compliance Officer and DUI Education Professional who understand the distinction is that the preferred terms would be Education and Early Intervention rather than those that contain Treatment or Alcoholism unless that is the actual case. I applied Jan 8, was denied March 13 and appealed to ISP on April 17. Still waiting for them to sort it out.

Edited by IronSam, 20 June 2014 - 01:10 PM.


#44 Tango7

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,828 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 08

Posted 20 June 2014 - 01:19 PM

. I think we will all breath a whole lot easier once the guidelines that ISP is working on are actually released.

 
YES!!!

But actually knowing the rules will take so much fun out of the process...


[/purple]
You will not 'rise to the occasion', you will default to your level of training - plan accordingly.

Despite their rallying around us at election time, honoring only 8 hours of Illinois' 40+ hour law enforcement class towards a 16 hour requirement shows the contempt that our elected officials hold us in.

#45 bluerodeo

  • Members
  • 1 posts
  • Joined: 27-October 11

Posted 20 June 2014 - 01:24 PM

5/8/2014  Updated to add:

Wrongful denials based on "court ordered treatment for alcoholism" - at issue are the 102 counties each using differing terminology/vocabulary without a standardized reporting of DUI evaluaiton/education/intervention classes.  In some of the wrongful denials, the court documents was actually marked for "treatment" when it should have been eval or education.  Anyone wrongfully denied should file an appeal  with the ISP and submit the appropriate documentation.  If the court docs show wrong terminology, you may need to go back to the court and to the eval folks and have the documents corrected, then file appeal. In the meantime, the ISP is working with the circuit courts to standardize the terminology used.

 

 

The ISP has posted an appeal form on their website - https://www.isp.stat...Application.pdf 

 

You will need to fill out the form stating that you were not sentenced to court ordered treatment for alcoholism.   Include copies of your evaluation, copies of court documents, etc.  Mail or email it to the address listed.

 

If the court documents wrongfully list "treatment", you may have to have the documents corrected or ask for a statement of correction.

 

If you mail it, I would send it registered mail with delivery receipt requested.

Just an FYI... I filled out the form you gave a link to and sent it off to the ISP...How about that.... I got a phone call telling me to look at my denial letter and to file with the circuit court. They then sent the form back with a nice letter stating the same thing, file in court ... Do not waste your time. Just sayin.... I have been there done that. KP



#46 IronSam

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 218 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 14

Posted 20 June 2014 - 01:28 PM

Depends if you were denied by ISP or the Board of Review.

#47 slayer38115

  • Members
  • 41 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 14

Posted 20 June 2014 - 03:08 PM

I might add, I only posted in this to see if I should hold off on applying until this is resolved or is it simple enough procedure for a single DUI offense, no property damage, injuries or other factors, to get taken care of.

It sounded like the docket transcript was going to need changed for anyone needing it if and before the standard verbage is introduced.

I'm in the same position as IronSam, appealed my denial on April 21st.  To answer your actual question, I would say wait to apply at least until we see if anyone  denied for this  reason gets their appeal approved.  Right now, you'd just be wasting the application fee.


Edited by slayer38115, 20 June 2014 - 03:09 PM.


#48 cls74

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,163 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 13

Posted 20 June 2014 - 03:14 PM

5/8/2014  Updated to add:
Wrongful denials based on "court ordered treatment for alcoholism" - at issue are the 102 counties each using differing terminology/vocabulary without a standardized reporting of DUI evaluaiton/education/intervention classes.  In some of the wrongful denials, the court documents was actually marked for "treatment" when it should have been eval or education.  Anyone wrongfully denied should file an appeal  with the ISP and submit the appropriate documentation.  If the court docs show wrong terminology, you may need to go back to the court and to the eval folks and have the documents corrected, then file appeal. In the meantime, the ISP is working with the circuit courts to standardize the terminology used.
 
 
The ISP has posted an appeal form on their website - https://www.isp.stat...Application.pdf 
 
You will need to fill out the form stating that you were not sentenced to court ordered treatment for alcoholism.   Include copies of your evaluation, copies of court documents, etc.  Mail or email it to the address listed.
 
If the court documents wrongfully list "treatment", you may have to have the documents corrected or ask for a statement of correction.
 
If you mail it, I would send it registered mail with delivery receipt requested.

Just an FYI... I filled out the form you gave a link to and sent it off to the ISP...How about that.... I got a phone call telling me to look at my denial letter and to file with the circuit court. They then sent the form back with a nice letter stating the same thing, file in court ... Do not waste your time. Just sayin.... I have been there done that. KP

So have you looked into what it would take to file with the court?

This is idiotic IL politics at work. You can have 2 DUI'S as long as not more than one falls within 5 years of application. Yet, you can be denied even if you've only had one that was 30 years ago but the records state part of the sentence as alcoholism treatment.


I give up on this state and it's ways. Think I'll head back to the gun shop tomorrow after work and see if they'll give me an even money trade for the gear I've already purchased.

I didn't mind spending money on the gear, but I'm not going to waste time and money trying to convince them of what they should already know.

#49 slayer38115

  • Members
  • 41 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 14

Posted 20 June 2014 - 03:28 PM

Is there someone on these forums that can speak with the bill's author?  I think waiting for terminology to be changed is a long shot.  I'd like to know what the legislator's intent was by separating DUI from alcohol and drug treatment.  I would think a state rep or senator would be familiar with DUI law and know what the sentencing was.  If the two requirements were meant to be one and the same, then writing a DUI rule into the bill wouldn't have been necessary.



#50 cls74

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,163 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 13

Posted 20 June 2014 - 03:33 PM

I believe Madigan is on vacation.

#51 IronSam

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 218 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 14

Posted 20 June 2014 - 03:34 PM

You're exactly right Slayer. That't the Catch here. The Legislature's intent. I think ISP is aware of the separation of issues but has problems with the varied terminologies used in the Courts. My Compliance Officer tells me she may refer to Level 2 Moderate and her counterpart in another County may call it something else but it means the same thing to them. She also had a recent call from ISP, maybe about me but she can't remember for sure. They specifically asked if Level 2 Moderate (10hrs+12hrs) is considered Treatment for Alcoholism and she explained that it is NOT. The caller reached the same conclusion.

Don't know if CLS has applied and been denied or is speculating.
Sounds like bluerodeo was denied by the Board of Review.

There is no appeal in the Courts for an ISP denial that I know of. That is the venue for Board of Review denials. You may not have more than one DUI in the past 5 years as enumerated in Section 25 of the Law. Residential (in patient) or Court ordered Treatment for Alcoholism is another prohibitor in the Law. The issue here is that ISP is viewing the required DUI Education and Risk Reduction Classes as Treatment for Alcohoism due to varied language and terms used in the 100+ Court Jurisdictions in the State. Anyone with 2 or more DUI's, especially within the past 5 years will be denied as it is prohibited in the CCL Act. If you live in a County that uses the wrong words you'll have a problem.

Edited by IronSam, 20 June 2014 - 03:51 PM.


#52 cls74

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,163 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 13

Posted 20 June 2014 - 03:43 PM

I understand the law and what it says. But the ISP continue to interpret it to their liking and probably with influence from out of the department.

I would also bet Madigan wrote the i before e except after c rule as well. Seems this law and that rule go hand in hand with their implementation.

#53 slayer38115

  • Members
  • 41 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 14

Posted 20 June 2014 - 03:45 PM

There is no appeal in the Courts for an ISP denial that I know of. That is the domain for Board of Review denials. You may not have more than one DUI as enumerated in Section 25 of the Law. Residential (in patient) or Court ordered Treatment for Alcoholism is another prohibitor in the Law. The issue here is that ISP is viewing the required DUI Education and Risk Reduction Classes as Treatment for Alcohoism due to varied language and terms used in the 100+ Court Jurisdictions in the State. Anyone with 2 or more DUI's, especially within the past 5 years will be denied as it is prohibited in the CCL Act.

Yes, but based on what the ISP is doing, it doesn't matter if you have one or two DUI's, the treatment rule is going to win every time.  I can't see this being the intent when the law was written.  It could go a long way to helping by having some clarification from the author of the bill. 

 

If it is just a language problem, then I'll just have to reapply in 2017 after five years have passed from my case being cleared. 


Edited by slayer38115, 20 June 2014 - 03:56 PM.


#54 slayer38115

  • Members
  • 41 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 14

Posted 20 June 2014 - 03:49 PM

I understand the law and what it says. But the ISP continue to interpret it to their liking and probably with influence from out of the department.

I would also bet Madigan wrote the i before e except after c rule as well. Seems this law and that rule go hand in hand with their implementation.

Madigan didn't write the law.  I believe it was a state rep named Phelps, and he is a democrat



#55 cls74

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,163 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 13

Posted 20 June 2014 - 03:55 PM

I understand the law and what it says. But the ISP continue to interpret it to their liking and probably with influence from out of the department.
I would also bet Madigan wrote the i before e except after c rule as well. Seems this law and that rule go hand in hand with their implementation.

Madigan didn't write the law.  I believe it was a state rep named Phelps, and he is a democrat

Phelps name was on the bill, but Madigan's influence is all over it. This bill wasn't going anywhere until he had it his way. There were concessions by both sides, but only the give ups by our side have all these little nuances to them that are making it incredibly difficult.

#56 IronSam

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 218 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 14

Posted 20 June 2014 - 03:59 PM

I have to agree that ISP is applying a May Issue standard to a Shall Issue Law. I don't believe they're confused either. They seem to be digging hard to deny based on verbage. It's probably better to slog through this than wait to re-apply. We should prevail in a matter of time. It is frustrating.

Edited by IronSam, 20 June 2014 - 04:01 PM.


#57 cls74

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,163 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 13

Posted 20 June 2014 - 04:05 PM

There is no appeal in the Courts for an ISP denial that I know of. That is the domain for Board of Review denials. You may not have more than one DUI as enumerated in Section 25 of the Law. Residential (in patient) or Court ordered Treatment for Alcoholism is another prohibitor in the Law. The issue here is that ISP is viewing the required DUI Education and Risk Reduction Classes as Treatment for Alcohoism due to varied language and terms used in the 100+ Court Jurisdictions in the State. Anyone with 2 or more DUI's, especially within the past 5 years will be denied as it is prohibited in the CCL Act.

Yes, but based on what the ISP is doing, it doesn't matter if you have one or two DUI's, the treatment rule is going to win every time.  I can't see this being the intent when the law was written.  It could go a long way to helping by having some clarification from the author of the bill. 
 
If it is just a language problem, then I'll just have to reapply in 2017 after five years have passed from my case being cleared.

Therein lies the problem. It doesn't matter the age of the DUI, but the wording of the docket by the circuit clerk of that county. Mine is over 5 years, but I will still be denied because it says "alcoholism treatment sentenced in force". All 5 years was supposed to mean is you couldn't have 2 DUI'S within the 5 years preceding your date of application.

Even if they change the wording in all 102 counties, you still have x number of.counties that have the differing language in it causing the denial up until the change is made.

There won't be any asterisks for predated DUI'S. So if it were to get changed tomorrow and someone gets a DUI tomorrow night, they could still apply on Monday as long as it was heir only one in the past 5 years. The common language statewide on court ordered classes would have them basically exempted from the hassles we are going through.

#58 slayer38115

  • Members
  • 41 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 14

Posted 20 June 2014 - 04:10 PM

 

 

There is no appeal in the Courts for an ISP denial that I know of. That is the domain for Board of Review denials. You may not have more than one DUI as enumerated in Section 25 of the Law. Residential (in patient) or Court ordered Treatment for Alcoholism is another prohibitor in the Law. The issue here is that ISP is viewing the required DUI Education and Risk Reduction Classes as Treatment for Alcohoism due to varied language and terms used in the 100+ Court Jurisdictions in the State. Anyone with 2 or more DUI's, especially within the past 5 years will be denied as it is prohibited in the CCL Act.

Yes, but based on what the ISP is doing, it doesn't matter if you have one or two DUI's, the treatment rule is going to win every time.  I can't see this being the intent when the law was written.  It could go a long way to helping by having some clarification from the author of the bill. 
 
If it is just a language problem, then I'll just have to reapply in 2017 after five years have passed from my case being cleared.

Therein lies the problem. It doesn't matter the age of the DUI, but the wording of the docket by the circuit clerk of that county. Mine is over 5 years, but I will still be denied because it says "alcoholism treatment sentenced in force". All 5 years was supposed to mean is you couldn't have 2 DUI'S within the 5 years preceding your date of application.

Even if they change the wording in all 102 counties, you still have x number of.counties that have the differing language in it causing the denial up until the change is made.

There won't be any asterisks for predated DUI'S. So if it were to get changed tomorrow and someone gets a DUI tomorrow night, they could still apply on Monday as long as it was heir only one in the past 5 years. The common language statewide on court ordered classes would have them basically exempted from the hassles we are going through.

 

What you posted before, the copy of your court docket, shows a date in 2010.



#59 Dr. Rat

    JMHO

  • Members
  • 2,369 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 14

Posted 20 June 2014 - 04:10 PM

I have to agree that ISP is applying a May Issue standard to a Shall Issue Law. I don't believe they're confused either. They seem to be digging hard to deny based on verbage. It's probably better to slog through this than wait to re-apply. We should prevail in a matter of time. It is frustrating.

 

I don't see that they're digging hard, just that they're enforcing the law as written. The law clearly says treatment for alcoholism is a prohibiting criterion, so if the court documents list that as part of the sentence, what is the ISP supposed to do? they can't ignore it.



#60 slayer38115

  • Members
  • 41 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 14

Posted 20 June 2014 - 04:13 PM

 

I have to agree that ISP is applying a May Issue standard to a Shall Issue Law. I don't believe they're confused either. They seem to be digging hard to deny based on verbage. It's probably better to slog through this than wait to re-apply. We should prevail in a matter of time. It is frustrating.

 

I don't see that they're digging hard, just that they're enforcing the law as written. The law clearly says treatment for alcoholism is a prohibiting criterion, so if the court documents list that as part of the sentence, what is the ISP supposed to do? they can't ignore it.

 

A big part of the arguement, mine anyway, is it says "court ordered treatment", when the state mandates the requirement and the court oversees implementation. Therefore DUI sentences should not be included.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users