Implied Consent Victory: Client Saves License

I win a lot of implied consent hearings. More often, however, the hearing officers are so terrible that, if the cop shows up, you lose. This one was too funny not to share.
Michigan's implied consent law states that a person must submit to a chemical test after a valid arrest. If you fail to submit to the test, your license is suspended for one year, and six points are added. You can win by showing 1) the traffic stop was unlawful, 2) the arrest lacked probable cause, 3) chemical test rights were not read, or 4) there was reasonable refusal. 
In an Inkster case, my client was stopped because he was in the median, that grassy area between the divided portion of Michigan Avenue. He was there because he had spent the better part of the day drinking at local strip club. It was an ugly case, but Inkster officers always delightfully surprise me.
The report was barebones. It basically said that the client was falling down drunk, but the officers performed no field sobriety tests. 
The officers testified that my client appeared to be highly intoxicated, with his car parked in the median. They arrested him, and they took him back to the police station. One of the officers pointed to the breath machine and said, "are you going to take that test?" My client shook his head no.  
The hearing officer looked at me after that testimony and asked if I would like to cross-examine. I looked at him and said some of the most painfully difficult words I have ever said: "No thank you."  The hearing officer smiled.
The hearing officer tried to help the officers. The secretary of state rules specifically permit a hearing officer to assist parties who are present without a lawyer, and this rule normally operates to help the police officers. He asked his own questions trying to establish whether the officers read my client anything before asking him to submit to the chemical test. The police officer looked at the hearing officer and replied, "No, I never got a chance. I knew he was going to say no."
The hearing officer shook his head and asked, "Mr. Maze, would you like to tell these officers what they did wrong?"  It was my turn to smile.
I quickly rattled off the following: Number 1, there's no evidence that my client was ever operating the motor vehicle. The fact that his vehicle was in the median does not establish that he ever actually drove or operated the vehicle. Number 2, there's no probable cause. Without field sobriety tests, a PBT, or some other description of my client's level of alcohol consumption, we can't simply assume that he's intoxicated. Number 3, and perhaps most importantly, an officer must read chemical test rights to the subject before asking whether or not the person is refusing. Finally, number 4, in light of the chemical test rights having not been read, the chemical test refusal was reasonable, since my client had no idea what the refusal ramifications entail."
The hearing officer smiled and said he agreed, and he proceeded to lecture the officers.