Pepin v. Dep't of Motor Vehs., 275 Cal. App. 2d 9 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969). · Go Syfert
Search
Pepin v. Dep't of Motor Vehs., 275 Cal. App. 2d 9 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Burnett v. Department of Licensing (washctapp, 1992-07-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1969 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1969 1997 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Burnett v. Department of Licensing
Wash. Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
State v. Breed, 111 Idaho 497, 501 , 725 P.2d 202, 206 (Ct. App. 1986); DeScala v. Motor Vehicle Div. of Dep't of Rev., 667 P.2d 1360, 1362 (Colo. 1983); Gableman v. Hjelle, 224 N.W.2d 379, 383 (N.D. 1974); Pepin v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 275 Cal. App. 2d 9, 11 , 79 Cal. Rptr. 657, 659 (1969).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hernandez v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2×)
Cal. · 1981 · confidence medium
NOTES [1] The statute's "implied consent" appellation derives from the fact that section 13353, subdivision (a) provides in part that "[a]ny person who drives a motor vehicle upon a highway ... shall be deemed to have given his consent to a chemical test of his blood, breath or urine for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his blood if lawfully arrested for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor." (Italics added.) Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references in this opinion are to the Vehic…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gableman v. Hjelle
N.D. · 1974 · confidence medium
In Signal Oil and Gas Company v. Williams County, 206 N.W.2d 75, 83 (N.D.1973), this court stated: “Furthermore, a court need not know the special reasons, motives, or policies of a State legislature in adopting a particular classification, so long as the policy is one within the power of the legislature to pursue, and so long as the classification bears a reasonable relation to those reasons, motives, or policies.” In Pepin v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 275 Cal.App.2d 9 , 79 Cal.Rptr. 657, 659 (1969), the California Appeal Court stated: *384 “Pepin unmeritoriously asserts that becaus…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Goodman v. Orr
Cal. Ct. App. · 1971 · confidence medium
(See Smith v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 1 Cal. App.3d 499, 503 ; Funke v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 1 Cal. App.3d 449, 453 ; Lagomarsino v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 276 Cal. App.2d 517, 519 ; Lacy v. Orr, supra, 276 Cal. App.2d 198, 203-204 ; Pepin v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1969) 275 Cal. App.2d 9, 10 [ 79 Cal. Rptr. 657 ]; Walker v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 274 Cal. App.2d 793, 797 ; Beales v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles (1969) 271 Cal. App.2d 594, 595-596 [ 76 Cal. Rptr. 662 ]; and Reirdon v. Director of Dept. of Motor Vehicles, supra, 266 Cal…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Goodman v. Orr
Cal. Ct. App. · 1971 · confidence medium
(See Smith v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 1 Cal.App.3d 499, 503 ; Funke v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 1 Cal.App.3d 449, 453 ; Lagomarsino v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 276 Cal.App.2d 517, 519 ; Lacy v. Orr, supra, 276 Cal.App.2d 198, 203-204 ; Pepin v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 9, 10 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 657 ]; Walker v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 274 Cal.App.2d 793, 797 ; Beales v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 594, 595-596 [ 76 Cal.Rptr. 662 ]; and Reirdon v. Director of Dept. of Motor Vehicles, supra, 266 Cal.App.2d 8…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rees v. Department of Motor Vehicles
Cal. Ct. App. · 1970 · confidence medium
(Wethern v. Orr, 271 Cal.App.2d 813 [76 Cal.Rptr, 807]; Rust v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 267 Cal.App.2d 545 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 366 ].) Generally the question is one of fact upon which a finding by the trial court, express or implied, supported by substantial evidence is conclusive on appeal (Pepin v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 275 Cal.App.2d 9, 11 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 657 ]; Walker v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 274 Cal.App.2d 793, 796-800 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 433 ]; Farrington v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 272 Cal.App.2d 330, 335 [ 77 Cal.Rptr. 388 ]; Kingston v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 27…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Plumb v. Department of Motor Vehicles
Cal. Ct. App. · 1969 · confidence medium
It has been distinguished in Walker v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1969) 274 Cal. App.2d 793, 796-800 [ 79 Cal. Rptr. 433 ], and Pepin v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1969) 275 Cal. App.2d 9, 10-11 [ 79 Cal. Rptr. 657 ]. [3] In the latter case it was stated simply that substantial evidence supported the court's implied finding that Pepin was not misled.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Plumb v. Department of Motor Vehicles
Cal. Ct. App. · 1969 · confidence medium
It has been distinguished in Walker v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 793, 796-800 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 433 ], and Pepin v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 9, 10-11 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 657 ]. 3 In the latter case it was stated simply that substantial evidence supported the court’s implied finding that Pepin was not misled.
JAMES
v.
PEPIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant and Respondent
Civ. 9163.
California Court of Appeal.
Jul 22, 1969.
275 Cal. App. 2d 9
JAMES V. PEPIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant and Respondent.
Brown (Gerald).
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published
BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

The Department of Motor Vehicles ordered James V. Pepin’s driver’s license suspended for his refusal to submit to any of the blood alcohol tests required by Vehicle Code, section 13353, after he was arrested by an officer who had reasonable cause to believe he was driving while drunk (Freeman v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 70 Cal.2d 235, 237-238 [74 Cal.Rptr. 259, 449 P.2d 195]).

Pepin brought mandamus in the superior court to compel the DMV to reinstate his driving privileges. He lost, and appeals from the judgment.

As we must, we review the matter most favorably in support of the judgment. The trial court found upon substantial evidence Officer Tompkins arrested Pepin for drunk driving ; requested him to take the blood alcohol test prescribed by Vehicle Code, section 13353; told him if he refused, his license would be suspended six months; Pepin refused to take the test, and after formal hearing the department ordered his license suspended.

Pepin was not entitled to consult his attorney before taking the test and his insistence upon consulting his attorney before taking the test supports the finding he refused to take it. (Rust v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 267 Cal.App.2d 545 [73 Cal.Rptr. 366].)

[*11] Substantial evidence supports the court’s implied finding Pepin was not misled by Tompkins’ earlier warning Pepin had the right to an attorney. Pepin testified at the formal hearing of the board the reason why he said he wanted to call his attorney was because “You hear so much scuttlebutt . . . about the effects of all those tests ... so I just didn’t know which one to take . . . that is why I wanted the advice of an attorney. ’ ’ The court could reasonably conclude from Pepin’s own testimony he was not misled by any advice the officer gave him respecting his right to an attorney, that Pepin independently attempted to assert his nonexistent right to counsel in connection with the tests.

Pepin unmeritoriously asserts that because section 13353 does not permit an exception for “employment-livelihood” cases, similar to that of Vehicle Code, section 13210, he is denied the equal protection of the laws. The issue is whether section 13353 arbitrarily discriminates against certain classes of persons who refuse to take the chemical test, as opposed to other classes who also refuse the test. No discrimination exists. No particular class of person is selected for suspension for refusing a chemical test. The suspension is mandatory, not discretionary.

Pepin did not have a constitutional right to refuse to take the chemical test (Finley v. Orr, 262 Cal.App.2d 656, 662-663 [69 Cal.Rptr. 137]).

Judgment affirmed.

Coughlin, J., and Ault, J. pro tem., * concurred.

*

Assigned by the Chairman of the Judicial Council.