(1) Any person whose operator's license has been revoked pursuant to a conviction for a violation of sections 60-6,196, 60-6,197, and 60-6,199 to 60-6,204 for a third or subsequent time for a period of fifteen years may apply to the Department of Motor Vehicles not more often than once per calendar year, on forms prescribed by the department, requesting the department to make a recommendation to the Board of Pardons for reinstatement of his or her eligibility for an operator's license. Upon receipt of the application and a nonrefundable application fee of one hundred dollars, the Director of Motor Vehicles shall review the application and make a recommendation for reinstatement or for denial of reinstatement. The department may recommend reinstatement if such person shows the following:

(a) Such person has completed a state-certified substance abuse program and is recovering or such person has substantially recovered from the dependency on or tendency to abuse alcohol or drugs, as determined by a counselor certified or licensed in this state;

(b) Such person has not been convicted, since the date of the revocation order, of any subsequent violations of section 60-6,196 or 60-6,197 or any comparable city or village ordinance and the applicant has not, since the date of the revocation order, submitted to a chemical test under section 60-6,197 that indicated an alcohol concentration in violation of section 60-6,196 or refused to submit to a chemical test under section 60-6,197;

(c) Such person has not been convicted, since the date of the revocation order, of driving while under suspension, revocation, or impoundment under section 60-4,109;

(d) Such person has abstained from the consumption of alcoholic beverages and the consumption of drugs except at the direction of a licensed physician or pursuant to a valid prescription;

(e) Such person's operator's license is not currently subject to suspension or revocation for any other reason; and

(f) Such person has agreed that, if the Board of Pardons reinstates such person's eligibility to apply for an ignition interlock permit, such person must provide proof, to the satisfaction of the department, that an ignition interlock device has been installed and is maintained on one or more motor vehicles such person operates for the duration of the original fifteen-year revocation period and such person must operate only motor vehicles so equipped for the duration of the original fifteen-year revocation period.

(2) In addition, the department may require other evidence from such person to show that restoring such person's privilege to drive will not present a danger to the health and safety of other persons using the highways.

(3) Upon review of the application, the director shall make the recommendation to the Board of Pardons in writing and shall briefly state the reasons for the recommendations. The recommendation shall include the original application and other evidence submitted by such person. The recommendation shall also include any record of any other applications such person has previously filed under this section.

(4) The department shall adopt and promulgate rules and regulations to govern the procedures for making a recommendation to the Board of Pardons.

(5) If the Board of Pardons reinstates such person's eligibility for an operator's license or an ignition interlock permit or orders a reprieve of such person's motor vehicle operator's license revocation, such reinstatement or reprieve may be conditioned for the duration of the original revocation period on such person's continued recovery and, if such person is a holder of an ignition interlock permit, shall be conditioned for the duration of the original revocation period on such person's operation of only motor vehicles equipped with an ignition interlock device. If such person is convicted of any subsequent violation of section 60-6,196 or 60-6,197, the reinstatement of the person's eligibility for an operator's license shall be withdrawn and such person's operator's license will be revoked by the Department of Motor Vehicles for the time remaining under the original revocation, independent of any sentence imposed by the court, after thirty days' written notice to the person by first-class mail at his or her last-known mailing address as shown by the records of the department.

(6) If the Board of Pardons reinstates a person's eligibility for an operator's license or an ignition interlock permit or orders a reprieve of such person's motor vehicle operator's license revocation, the board shall notify the Department of Motor Vehicles of the reinstatement or reprieve. Such person may apply for an operator's license upon payment of a fee of one hundred twenty-five dollars and the filing of proof of financial responsibility. The fees paid pursuant to this section shall be collected by the department and remitted to the State Treasurer. The State Treasurer shall credit seventy-five dollars of each fee to the General Fund and fifty dollars of each fee to the Department of Motor Vehicles Cash Fund.

Source:Laws 1992, LB 291, § 10; R.S.Supp.,1992, § 39-669.19; Laws 1993, LB 370, § 304; Laws 1998, LB 309, § 18; Laws 2001, LB 38, § 54; Laws 2003, LB 209, § 13; Laws 2004, LB 208, § 12; Laws 2004, LB 1083, § 102; Laws 2008, LB736, § 9; Laws 2014, LB998, § 12; Laws 2019, LB270, § 41.

Annotations

This section (60-6,209 (Reissue 1993)) clearly defines the 15-year revocation as serving as a punishment and is unconstitutional because it permits a judicial commutation of a sentence of punishment. Because this section permits the judicial branch to exercise the power of commutation, a power that clearly belongs to the executive branch, this section is unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of powers clause of the Nebraska Constitution. State v. Bainbridge, 249 Neb. 260, 543 N.W.2d 154 (1996).

The law does not grant an absolute right to defendant to a reduction of a term of revocation, but provides that the period of revocation "may" be reduced if the provisions of the statute are shown by the applicant to be satisfied by the preponderance of the evidence. State v. Packett, 246 Neb. 888, 523 N.W.2d 695 (1994).