Whether appellant was ordered out or voluntarily exited appellant’s vehicle, the officer’s ensuing observations of appellant’s physical condition were properly utilized by hearing officer to satisfy requirement of subsection (e)(2) that probable cause existed to believe that appellant drove while under the influence. 75 H. 1, 856 P.2d 1207.

When both subsections (d) and (g) are read together, it is clear that in addition to officers who are required to be subpoenaed, director may issue subpoenas to other officers or individuals; appellant’s contention that subsection (g) limited director’s subpoena power to those officials who submitted sworn statements was without merit. 75 H. 271, 859 P.2d 917.

Director’s refusal to issue subpoena for the custodian of records of hospital was not an abuse of discretion; ADLRO’s method of preparing hearing transcripts comported with subsection (h), and district court properly considered the transcripts. 76 H. 380, 878 P.2d 719.

Arrestee may be represented by counsel if arrestee chooses; however, no right to counsel as in the context of a criminal proceeding. 80 H. 197, 908 P.2d 545.

Section does not mandate continuance of hearing where retained counsel is unavailable; hearing officer has discretionary authority to grant or deny continuance for good cause; counsel's involvement in another trial is not per se good cause. 80 H. 197, 908 P.2d 545.

Hearing officer could conclude by preponderance of evidence, including margin of error for intoxilizer test result, that it was more probable than not that respondent had blood alcohol content above legal limit. 83 H. 24, 924 P.2d 192.

Margin of error in intoxilyzer test result is a relevant factor to be weighed in considering evidence for driver license revocation. 83 H. 24, 924 P.2d 192.

Administrative Driver’s License Revocation Office’s practice of denying all prehearing subpoena requests for witnesses other than law enforcement officials submitting sworn statements does not violate an arrestee’s right to due process. 88 H. 55, 961 P.2d 620.

Where hearing officer needed "more time" to make relevancy determination as to arrestee’s requested witnesses, the continuance should have been designated a "director’s continuance" pursuant to subsection (j). 88 H. 55, 961 P.2d 620.

Director's violation of mandatory time requirements of section voided the administrative revocation of driver's license proceeding against petitioner. 9 H. App. 396, 843 P.2d 145.

Where there was no "hearing" within purview of subsection (h), there was no obligation to record proceedings. 10 H. App. 322, 871 P.2d 796.

At hearing held under this section, arrestee entitled to examine person offering reason for continuance on issue of whether there was good cause to continue administrative hearing pursuant to subsection (j). 80 H. 358 (App.), 910 P.2d 129.

Director's refusal to issue subpoenas to incident witnesses pursuant to this section abuse of discretion as witnesses possessed evidence relevant to question of arrestee's intoxication. 80 H. 358 (App.), 910 P.2d 129.