The MDDP Holder Who Wants Behind-the-Wheel Lessons
Dev, 34, received a first DUI statutory summary suspension after a stop in which he provided a breath sample of 0.13. He obtained an MDDP and had a BAIID installed in his pickup. Last week the pickup went into lockout after two failed morning breath tests, so he drove his wife's minivan to O'Hare and back. He now calls the driving school where you teach: he wants to buy four behind-the-wheel lessons in the school's dual-control sedan to 'knock the rust off' before his suspension ends. He says the MDDP 'covers him for any car because he's a licensed driver,' and asks whether the school can pick him up and let him drive its sedan, or use the minivan if the sedan is booked. He is polite, offers to pay in advance, and says his hearing is not for another month.
1. May Dev take lessons in the school's sedan or in the minivan? What should the school tell him?
Read the worked answer
No on both. An MDDP is a limited permit: it allows Dev to drive only a vehicle equipped with a functioning BAIID, and it does not authorize him to drive any other vehicle. The school's dual-control sedan has no device, so Dev behind its wheel is not a student taking a lesson; he is driving on a suspended license. The minivan fails the same test, and the O'Hare trip was already a violation of the permit. The school should decline specifically rather than vaguely: it cannot put him in a car without a BAIID while an MDDP is in effect. It should not accept payment for behind-the-wheel hours it cannot lawfully deliver, and it should not 'just do a quick evaluation in the lot,' because the restriction follows the vehicle, not the location.
2. What are the likely administrative consequences of the lockout and the minivan trip, and what should Dev do now?
Read the worked answer
The device records failed breath tests and lockouts, and downloads go to the Secretary of State; the minivan trip is a separate violation of the driving restriction. Together they can lead to cancellation of the MDDP, an extended BAIID requirement, and further suspension action. Dev will get notice and can request an administrative hearing. At that hearing the useful evidence is factual, not sympathetic: device service records showing a malfunction, who was driving when, mileage and timestamps, his work schedule, and the invoice for the lockout service. Right now he should get the pickup serviced, stop driving anything without a device, keep the minivan keys out of reach, and calendar the hearing-request deadline printed on the notice. The school can refer him to the BAIID provider and the SOS, but it cannot fix the violation.
3. Dev asks the school to write a letter saying he is 'a safe driver in good standing' for his hearing. How should the school respond?
Read the worked answer
Decline to vouch for something it has not observed and that his recent conduct contradicts. What the school can legitimately provide is a factual letter: dates of any lessons already taken, the fact that further lessons were declined and on what stated basis, that he was advised of the BAIID restriction, and whether he cooperated. It should not characterize his driving record, predict the outcome, or imply that he has been cleared, because anything written may be produced in the proceeding and an overstated letter damages both Dev and the school's credibility. A neutral, factual statement is appropriate; a character endorsement covering a permit violation is not. The instructor should also keep a copy of whatever is sent.