MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE
Act 300 of 1949
257.322 Hearing officer; appointment; powers and duties as to appeals from final determination of secretary of state.
Sec. 322.
(1) The secretary of state shall appoint a hearing officer to hear appeals from persons aggrieved by a final determination of the secretary of state denying an application for an operator's or chauffeur's license, suspending, restricting, or revoking an operator's or chauffeur's license, or other license action.
(2) The appeal shall be in writing and filed with the secretary of state within 14 days after the final determination. Upon notice of the appeal, the hearing officer shall require production of all documents filed in the matter, together with a transcript of any testimony taken.
(3) In a hearing or matter properly before the hearing officer, he or she may do any of the following:
(a) Issue subpoenas to compel attendance of witnesses.
(b) Issue process to compel attendance.
(c) Punish for contempt any witness failing to appear or testify in the same manner as provided by the rules and practice in the circuit court.
(d) Swear witnesses, administer oaths, and exemplify records in any matter before the officer.
(e) Take additional testimony he or she considers appropriate.
(4) A verbatim record shall be made of the hearing.
(5) After a hearing, the hearing officer may affirm, modify, or set aside a final determination of the secretary of state denying an application for an operator's or chauffeur's license, suspending, restricting, or revoking an operator's or chauffeur's license, or any other license action. The hearing officer shall include his or her findings of fact and conclusions of law in the record.
(6) Except as provided in subsection (7), if a person whose license has been denied or revoked under section 303(2)(c), (d), or (g) applies for a license or reinstatement of a license after the time period specified in section 303(4) has elapsed, the hearing officer may issue a restricted license to that person, setting restrictions upon operating a vehicle as the hearing officer determines are appropriate. If the hearing officer issues a restricted license following a hearing held after October 1, 1999, he or she shall do both of the following:
(a) Require a properly installed and functioning ignition interlock device on each motor vehicle the person owns or intends to operate, the costs of which shall be borne by the person whose license is restricted.
(b) Condition issuance of a restricted license upon verification by the secretary of state that an ignition interlock device has been installed.
(7) The hearing officer shall not issue a restricted license under subsection (6) that would permit the person to operate a commercial motor vehicle that hauls hazardous material.
(8) If the hearing officer issues a restricted license to a person who intends to operate a vehicle owned by his or her employer, the secretary of state shall notify the employer of the employee's license restriction that requires the installation of an ignition interlock device. An employer who receives notice under this subsection is not required to install an ignition interlock device on the employer-owned vehicle. This subsection does not apply to a vehicle that is operated by a self-employed individual who uses the vehicle for both business and personal use.
(9) If the hearing officer issues a restricted license requiring an ignition interlock device, the initial period for requiring the device shall be not less than 1 year.
History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1953, Act 215, Eff. Oct. 2, 1953 ;-- Am. 1976, Act 9, Imd. Eff. Feb. 13, 1976 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 340, Eff. Oct. 1, 1999 ;-- Am. 2001, Act 159, Imd. Eff. Nov. 6, 2001 ;-- Am. 2008, Act 462, Eff. Oct. 31, 2010
TransferOfPowers Notes:
See MCL 16.129.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case:
Shavers v. Attorney Gen., 267 N.W.2d 72 (Mich. 1978).
Shavers v. Attorney Gen., 267 N.W.2d 72 (Mich. 1978).
· cites it 2× “3135(2); MSA 24.13135(2). [20] See MCL 500.3105 et seq.”
Crampton v. Dep't of State, 235 N.W.2d 352 (Mich. 1975).
· cites it 3× “3 The act provides that the License Appeal Board shall be composed of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Sheriff/Chief of Police of the county/city where the petitioner resides, or their representatives.”
Gargagliano v. Sec'y of State, 233 N.W.2d 159 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 8× “) In contrast with this provision is § 322 of the same vehicle code, MCLA 257.322; MSA 9.2022, relating to the license appeal board and which states as relevant to our purposes: "Any person, conceiving himself aggrieved by any final determination of the commissioner denying an…”
Wolney v. Sec'y of State, 257 N.W.2d 754 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “I concur in the result only. While I fully agree with my brother's fine opinion, I am convinced that the finding "Petitioner unreasonably refused to submit to the test" is one not based on fact or testimony, but on an administrative policy.”
People v. Dunn, 304 N.W.2d 856 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
“Plaintiffs argue, on the other hand, that § 303(d) allows the Secretary of State to formulate a policy whereby those persons with two convictions within the seven-year period are denied licenses subject to review within the Department of State pursuant to MCL 257.322; MSA…”
Nicholas v. Sec'y of State, 253 N.W.2d 662 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 8× “Since this revocation merely reinstated the prior revocation which had been stayed by the order of *68 restoration, the Secretary of State indicated to the plaintiff that the right to an administrative appeal under MCLA 257.322; MSA 9.2022 did not apply. On November 17, 1975,…”
D Chad Morrow v. Sec'y of State (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 4× “Then, after a rejected challenge in 2019, petitioner sought an administrative hearing under MCL 257.322(1) in 2021 to once again fight the continuing revocation and seek restoration of his license.”
20250225_C370273_24_370273.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 4× “After hearing oral arguments, the court expressed concern regarding appeal hearing powers pursuant to MCL 257.322. The court’s main concern was that, based on the language of the statute, it is difficult for the appellate court to indicate how the hearing officer’s decision was…”
Kindrow v. Benson (E.D. Mich. 2021).
· cites it 2× “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.322 . The court need not make an express finding as to the constitutionality of Defendant’s actions since it is clear that she did not violate any clearly established right—she reasonably depended on a presumption that the statute was lawful.”
Crampton v. Dep't of State, 220 N.W.2d 765 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 2× “The hearing was conducted by appeal board representatives of the Secretary of State and the local police department as provided by MCLA 257.322; MSA 9.2022. The appeal board refused to restore plaintiff’s driving privileges and he filed for judicial review, MCLA 257.”
Chad Morrow v. Sec'y of State (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
“MCL 257.322(1). Morrow bore the burden of rebutting “by clear and convincing evidence the presumption resulting from the prima facie evidence that he or she is a habitual offender.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.322(1) — 2 cases
D Chad Morrow v. Sec'y of State (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
“Then, after a rejected challenge in 2019, petitioner sought an administrative hearing under MCL 257.322(1) in 2021 to once again fight the continuing revocation and seek restoration of his license.”
Chad Morrow v. Sec'y of State (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
“MCL 257.322(1). Morrow bore the burden of rebutting “by clear and convincing evidence the presumption resulting from the prima facie evidence that he or she is a habitual offender.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.322(3) — 1 case
D Chad Morrow v. Sec'y of State (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
“Then, after a rejected challenge in 2019, petitioner sought an administrative hearing under MCL 257.322(1) in 2021 to once again fight the continuing revocation and seek restoration of his license.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.322(5) — 1 case
20250225_C370273_24_370273.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“After hearing oral arguments, the court expressed concern regarding appeal hearing powers pursuant to MCL 257.322. The court’s main concern was that, based on the language of the statute, it is difficult for the appellate court to indicate how the hearing officer’s decision was…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.