Louisiana House Bill HB253

Louisiana 2011 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/25/11
• Refer: 4/25/11
• Report Pass: 5/3/11
• Engrossed: 5/12/11
• Refer: 5/16/11
• Report Pass: 5/31/11
• Enrolled: 6/9/11
• Chaptered: 6/14/11
• Passed: 6/14/11

Caption

Authorizes a driving under suspension hardship license for non-alcohol related offenses

Summary

House Bill 253 seeks to amend the existing state laws regarding the suspension or revocation of driver's licenses due to non-alcohol related offenses. This legislation introduces provisions for individuals who face economic or medical hardships as a result of losing their driving privileges. Specifically, it allows these individuals to apply for a restricted license if it can be demonstrated that such a suspension would deprive them or their families of essential needs or inhibit access to adequate medical treatment. Under the new provisions, individuals are granted the opportunity to petition for a restricted driver's license through a district court. The bill stipulates that the court will assess claims of hardship following a defined process, including a contradictory hearing with a reasonable notice period to the department responsible for the issuance of licenses and permits. If the court determines that the restrictions on a driver's license would negatively impact an individual’s livelihood or medical care, it may order the issuance of a restricted license. The sentiment around HB 253 appears generally positive, as it responds to the needs of individuals facing hardships due to driving suspensions. By enabling responsible drivers who are essentially penalized for their circumstances to maintain some level of mobility, the bill is viewed as a beneficial measure for those directly affected. Supporters argue that this legislation acknowledges the complexities of individual circumstances that might not warrant a complete loss of driving privileges. However, notable points of contention include concerns about the implementation of these hardship licenses and how effectively they would safeguard against potential misuse. Critics may worry about the potential for abuse of the system, where individuals might claim hardship without sufficient justification. The defined criteria for hardship and the judicial process involved may also raise questions about consistency and fairness in granting these licenses across different cases.