Most states administratively revoke the offender's driving privileges without waiting for a conviction on a DWI charge. Because this allows a driver's license to be confiscated immediately, punishment is swift and sure.

The primary purpose of license suspension is not to serve as a punitive measure or as a deterrent threat, but as a way of protecting the general public from a potentially dangerous driver. Licenses can be suspended or revoked. Although the terms often are used interchangeably, suspended licenses are automatically reinstated at the termination of the suspension, whereas revoked licenses must be replaced through renewed applications after the revocation period has expired. Retesting may be required for restoring revoked licenses.

A DWI arrest can result in two kinds of licensing actions. The first is pre-conviction administrative license suspension (ALS) or revocation (ALR), which is carried out by the arresting officer as an administrative action on behalf of the motor vehicle administration. The second is a judicial post-conviction action ordered by the court. A single DWI arrest frequently will result in both an ALR suspension and a mandatory post-conviction suspension action.

Although details of ALR laws vary from state to state, once the licenses are confiscated, drivers are given a notice of suspension, which serves as a temporary permit for seven to 45 days, depending on the state. During that time, the suspension may be appealed at an administrative hearing. If there is no appeal, or the appeal is not upheld, the license is suspended for a prescribed period of time. Regardless of the outcome of the appeals hearing, the arrestee is still subject to a separate criminal process, which can lead to additional penalties, including judicial licensing actions.

For first offenders, suspensions vary from seven days to a year, but most often last 90 days. Repeat offenders usually receive longer suspensions. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recommends ALR laws impose at least a 90-day suspension or a 30-day suspension followed by 60 days of restricted driving.

As part of a TEA-21 incentive grant program, a state can qualify for a grant if it mandates a "hard" administrative license revocation system requiring a 90-day suspension for first offenders, a one-year suspension or revocation for repeat offenders, and that suspensions or revocations begin within 30 days after the offender refuses to submit to a chemical test or receives notice of having failed the test. A "hard" suspension entails complete revocation of driving privileges, without restricted driving privileges or a hardship license. Some states require the completion of an education or treatment program prior to re-licensure.

According to the 2002 National Hardcore Drunk Driver Project Survey, 41 states, the District of Columbia and one territory have ALR laws.

ALR laws are recognized as having a strong, general deterrence effect on drunk drivers because the mandatory punishment is swift and sure. Results of a self-reported survey in Ontario found a 35 percent reduction in people reporting drinking and driving after the administration of a widely publicized administrative license suspension law (Mann et al. 2000).

A study by Voas and Tippetts found ALR laws reduced alcohol-related fatal crashes overall in the United States by about 30 percent between 1982 and 1997. A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found ALR laws reduce the number of drivers involved in fatal crashes by about 9 percent during nighttime hours (IIHS 1996). NHTSA reports that, among 17 states implementing ALR either alone or in combination with other laws, the median effect is a 6 percent decrease in crashes likely to be alcohol-related (IIHS 1996).

ALR has also been shown to have a specific deterrence effect by delaying or deterring repeat offenses even once the period of suspension has concluded (NTSB 2000). A 1997 study of an ALS law in Manitoba, Canada, found DWI recidivism in the four years following an offense was reduced from 22.7 percent to 12.8 percent after a law was enacted allowing a 90-day suspension (Voas, Tippetts, and Taylor 1998).

A 2002 survey in a nationally representative sample of Americans found mandatory license revocation is the only policy tool to significantly and consistently affect perceptions of punishment severity. The study’s authors suggest the threat of losing driving privileges influences attitudes more than the threat of fines or incarceration (Richardson and Houston 2002).

Unfortunately, licensing actions are often circumvented by offenders who choose to drive despite suspension or revocation of their licenses. Additional policies are needed to detect unlicensed drivers and to integrate ALR laws with other sanctions to reduce the numbers of those who ignore their suspensions. For more information, see the Driving While Suspended section.

Indirect evidence suggests hardcore drunk drivers are more likely to violate the conditions of license suspension and also are more likely to be drinking when they do. According to research (Simpson, Mayhew, and Beirness 1996), drivers involved in serious crashes whose licenses have been suspended or revoked are more likely to have been drinking and to have high BACs. For example, among fatally injured drivers whose licenses were valid at the time of crash, 46 percent had been drinking and 62 percent of these had a BAC in excess of .15. By contrast, among fatally injured drivers whose licenses were suspended, 72 percent had been drinking and 62 percent of these had BACs in excess of .15. Among drivers whose licenses were revoked, 90 percent had been drinking and 79 percent of these had BACs in excess of .15.

Although ALR laws are among the most useful and most common for targeting drunk drivers, they are effective only as part of a systematic approach to deterring hardcore drunk driving. The combination of licensing sanctions with alcohol treatment is considered one of the most promising strategies for dealing with the hardcore drunk driver, with a 2000 study suggesting the combination had the potential to reduce recidivism by as much as 50 percent (Jones and Lacey 2001).

One argument against ALR has been the contention that license revocation leads to loss of employment, which in turn impacts the offender’s dependents and, subsequently, societal welfare costs. A 1996 NHTSA study of four jurisdictions found ALR does not have a pronounced impact on the DWI offender’s job and income (Knowbel and Ross 1996). One reason may be that the DWI offenders continued to drive, although presumably more carefully than when they were licensed. The main alternative for those who lost their licenses was riding with others. When 233 DWI multiple offenders were asked how they got to work while waiting for license reinstatement:

• 41 percent said someone else drove them;
  
  
• 22 percent said they drove themselves;
  
  
• 15 percent took a taxi;
  
  
• 15 percent walked or rode a bicycle; and
  
  
• 7 percent responded "other."

Studies demonstrate ALR laws are effective in reducing alcohol-related crashes by contributing to a 13 to 19 percent reduction in adult drivers in fatal crashes. A 2002 study in Ontario found ALS was associated with an estimated 17.3 percent fewer fatally injured drivers over the legal alcohol limit (Mann et al. 2002). This lifesaving effect is confirmed by NHTSA studies estimating 1,359 lives were saved in 1997 in states with ALR laws, and between 266 and 402 additional lives could have been saved in 1997 if ALR laws had been adopted in the 11 states without ALR laws at that time (NHTSA 2002).

ALR laws can be self-sufficient. In most states, offenders must pay a reinstatement fee to receive a new license at the end of the suspension period. For example, the fee for reissuing a revoked or suspended license in Washington state recently increased from $50 to $150 (Olalla Recovery Centers 2003). These fees can cover or exceed the cost of the program. A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study of ALR laws in Nevada, Mississippi and Illinois found increased revenues from license reinstatement fees more than offset costs associated with implementing the law. Additionally, reductions in crash-related costs were well over 100 times the cost of implementation.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. April 2002. State Legislative Fact Sheet: Administrative License Revocation. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Knowbel, K.Y., and Ross, H.L. 1996. Effects of Administrative License Revocation on Employment. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Mann, R.E., Smart, R.G., Stoduto, G., Adlaf, E.M., Vingilis, E., Beirness, D., and Lamble, R. 2000. Changing drinking-driving behaviour: The effects of Ontario's administrative driver's license suspension law. Canadian Medical Association Journal 16(2): 1141–1142.

Mann, R.E., Smart, R.G., Stoduto, G., Beirness, D., Lamble, R., and Vingilis, E. 2002. The early effects of Ontario's administrative driver's license suspension law on driver fatalities with a BAC >80mg%. Canadian Journal of Public Health 93(3): 176–180.