How to Win a DHSMV BAR Formal Review Hearing in 2026

Petitioner, [the driver], through undersigned counsel, moves to invalidate the administrative suspension and dismiss this case with prejudice, and states:

1. The driver requested a Formal Review Hearing on November 3, 2025.
2. A notice was issued on November 6, 2025, scheduling the hearing for November 25, 2025.
3. On November 24, 2025, the undersigned attorney received an email from the DHSMV stating that the hearing would be cancelled and continued to some unspecified later date and time. The email stated:
   

   “Please see attached temporary permit. The formal review scheduled for 11/25/2025, is being continued. The Notice of Continuance with new hearing date and time, will be issued in due course. Thank you for understanding.”

4. Neither the Petitioner nor the undersigned attorney requested a continuance or waived the right to a hearing within 30 days.
5. On the 30th day after requesting the formal review hearing (December 3, 2025), Petitioner and undersigned counsel still had no idea when or if the hearing would actually be rescheduled. This is a clear and obvious violation of Section 322.2615(9), Fla. Stat., which requires, in relevant part:
   

   “If the department fails to schedule the formal review hearing within 30 days after receipt of the request therefor, the department shall invalidate the suspension.”

6. The Hearing Officer has a documented pattern of setting the hearing within the 30-day window only to unilaterally cancel it without timely rescheduling, leaving licensees in limbo, and violating Section 322.2615(9), Fla. Stat.
7. Since the Department failed to schedule the formal review hearing within 30 days after receipt of the request, it was required to invalidate the suspension. Instead, it did nothing.
8. The driver’s 110-day permit issued on November 4, 2025, expired on February 22, 2026. During that entire time, the DHSMV never rescheduled the hearing.
9. On February 22, 2026, [the driver] suffered extreme prejudice because he was unable to drive in the State of Florida and had still not received any notice of when the formal review hearing would be rescheduled.
10. On February 26, 2026, undersigned counsel filed a Motion to Dismiss based on the violation of the 30-day rule.
11. On March 2, 2026, after another inquiry, the Hearing Officer acknowledged receipt of the motion but took no action to invalidate the suspension or promptly reschedule.
12. By that date, the Hearing Officer was also in violation of the temporary permit requirement under Section 322.2615(9), which mandates that the permit “shall be valid until the hearing is conducted if the person is otherwise eligible for the driving privilege.” The original permit had already expired, leaving [the driver] without valid driving privileges.
13. After numerous emails explaining the prejudice, the Hearing Officer finally issued a new temporary permit on March 10, 2026, running from March 10, 2026, until June 8, 2026. However, this late-issued permit did not cure the prior unlawful period of suspension from February 22, 2026, onward.
14. Additional and Ongoing Prejudice: [the driver] was unable to lawfully drive in Florida for significant periods due to the Department’s failure to comply with the statute, including but not limited to the period after February 22, 2026, when the first permit expired and no valid hearing or permit was in place. This caused substantial hardship, stress, and inconvenience as shown in [the driver’s] attached declaration. [[Insert specific information showing how the driver was prejudiced by not being able to travel for specific work, school, and church on specific occasions. For example, attach all of the Uber receipt for each such event showing the driver had to pay for alternative methods of transportation that would not have otherwise occurred]].
15. On or about May 1, 2026, [the driver] appeared in person at a Florida DMV office, paid the $186 reinstatement fee, and received full driving clearance and reinstatement of his Florida driving privileges. Documentation of this reinstatement has been provided to counsel.
16. While the payment of the reinstatement fee allowed [the driver] regain driving privileges, it does not cure or waive the Department’s statutory violation or the prejudice already suffered.
17. [The driver] continues to seek full invalidation of the underlying administrative suspension so that the matter is completely removed from his record.
18. The Department knew or should have known that its refusal to invalidate the suspension was not supported by the application of then-existing law to these material facts.
19. The Hearing Officer’s continued refusal to invalidate the administrative suspension or making a ruling on the driver’s motion to invalidate, despite clear statutory mandates caused unnecessary expense, delay, and prejudice to [the driver].

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Department enter an order: Invalidating the administrative suspension pursuant to § 322.2615(9), Fla. Stat.; Directing the complete removal of the suspension from Petitioner’s driving record; and Granting any and all other relief the Department deems just and proper, including consideration of sanctions under § 57.105, Fla. Stat., if applicable.

I hereby affirm that on May 18, 2026, this Amended Motion to Invalidate was served via email to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Bureau of Administrative Reviews to clearwaterBAR@flhsmv.gov.