public employee records exception in California

2024(Coffey v. Shiomoto (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1198, 1206, fn. 8 [“ ‘[t]est results from authorized laboratories, performed by public employees within the scope of their duties, are admissible under the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule’ ”]; County of Sonoma v. Grant W. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1439, 1448 [finding that laboratory’s paternity test results were admissible under the business records exception due to testimony establishing chain of custody, despite the fact that the technicians who received and tested the samples did not testify and were not available for cross-examination

2024(Coffey v. Shiomoto (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1198, 1206, fn. 8 [“ ‘[t]est results from authorized laboratories, performed by public employees within the scope of their duties, are admissible under the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule’ ”]; County of Sonoma v. Grant W. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1439, 1448 [finding that laboratory’s paternity test results were admissible under the business records exception due to testimony establishing chain of custody, despite the fact that the technicians who received and tested the samples did not testify and were not available for cross-examination

1995Code, § 11513; see Daniels, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 538 .)” (Imachi v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 817 , fn. omitted.) For several reasons, we choose not to follow Imachi insofar as it suggests that the public employee records exception applies only if the person making the record has personal knowledge of the recorded facts.

1992(Imachi v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 815; Snelgrove v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 194 Cal.App.3d at p. 1375 ; see Fisk v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 127 Cal.App.3d at p. 77 .) By contrast, because the officer in Imachi did not personally perform the blood test, the sworn statement that he had seen and was accurately reporting the results of that test “could not attest to the accuracy of the test results themselves or the propriety of procedures employed in obtaining them.” ( 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 816 .) We noted, however, that “[t]he actual writ

1995Citing Snelgrove v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 194 Cal.App.3d 1364 , and Fisk v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 127 Cal.App.3d 72 , the court in Imachi stated: “The conclusion of these cases that the officer’s statement falls within the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule was premised on the fact that the officer’s report was based on firsthand observations. [Citations.]” (Imachi v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 2 *642 Cal.App.4th at pp. 815-816.) Although this statement is accurate, neither Snelgrove nor Fisk suggests that sworn reports qualify as publ

1992(Imachi v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 815; Snelgrove v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 194 Cal.App.3d at p. 1375 ; see Fisk v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 127 Cal.App.3d at p. 77 .) By contrast, because the officer in Imachi did not personally perform the blood test, the sworn statement that he had seen and was accurately reporting the results of that test “could not attest to the accuracy of the test results themselves or the propriety of procedures employed in obtaining them.” ( 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 816 .) We noted, however, that “[t]he actual writ

2024(Coffey v. Shiomoto (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1198, 1206, fn. 8 [“ ‘[t]est results from authorized laboratories, performed by public employees within the scope of their duties, are admissible under the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule’ ”]; County of Sonoma v. Grant W. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1439, 1448 [finding that laboratory’s paternity test results were admissible under the business records exception due to testimony establishing chain of custody, despite the fact that the technicians who received and tested the samples did not testify and were not available for cross-examination

2024(Coffey v. Shiomoto (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1198, 1206, fn. 8 [“ ‘[t]est results from authorized laboratories, performed by public employees within the scope of their duties, are admissible under the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule’ ”]; County of Sonoma v. Grant W. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1439, 1448 [finding that laboratory’s paternity test results were admissible under the business records exception due to testimony establishing chain of custody, despite the fact that the technicians who received and tested the samples did not testify and were not available for cross-examination

2009But it shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over a hearsay objection in a civil action." ( Molenda v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 974, 987 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 792 ] ( Molenda ).) Thus, to support the DMV's finding that Miyamoto was driving with a blood-alcohol content in excess of 0.08 percent, the Lab Report must fall within an exception to the hearsay rule. (3) "In Lake , the California Supreme Court held that despite their hearsay nature, blood and urine test reports prepared by government forensic laboratories are admissi

2009“In Lake , the California Supreme Court held that despite their hearsay nature, blood and urine test reports prepared by government forensic laboratories are admissible in DMV administrative review hearings as official records under the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule, provided they meet the requirements of Evidence Code section 1280, which sets forth the exception.” ( Molenda, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at pp. 987-988, citing Lake, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 467 .) Section 1280 provides: “Evidence of a writing made as a record of an act, condition, or event is not made inadmiss

1995Code, § 11513; see Daniels, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 538 .)” (Imachi v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 817 , fn. omitted.) For several reasons, we choose not to follow Imachi insofar as it suggests that the public employee records exception applies only if the person making the record has personal knowledge of the recorded facts.

1987The court in Daniels , he notes, declined to address whether admissibility under the public employee records exception would “justify sole reliance on the officer’s report in an implied consent hearing . . . .” ( Daniels, supra, 33 Cal.3d 532, 541 .) This issue was thoroughly considered and resolved in Burkhart and again in Mackler .

1995“An officer’s statement reporting firsthand observations—objective symptoms of intoxication, circumstances of a driver’s refusal to submit to a chemical test, or results of a personally administered breath test—falls within the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule. [Citations.]” (Santos v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 5 Cal.App.4th 537, 546 .) Under the exception, a writing recording an act, condition or event is admissible if the writing was: (1) made by and within the scope of duty of a public employee; (2) at or near the time of the act, condition or event; and (3)

1994These statements, therefore, may form the sole basis for suspension of a driver’s license only if made from firsthand observation. [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 388-389.) In sum, an “officer’s statement reporting firsthand observations . . . falls within the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule. [Citations.]” (Santos v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 537, 546 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 10 ]; Evid.

2013(Petricka v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1341, 1348 (Petricka).) Although the DS 367 statement and forensic report are hearsay, they are admissible under the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule, provided they meet the foundational requirements of Evidence Code section 1280,2 which sets forth the exception.

2009But it shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over a hearsay objection in a civil action." ( Molenda v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 974, 987 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 792 ] ( Molenda ).) Thus, to support the DMV's finding that Miyamoto was driving with a blood-alcohol content in excess of 0.08 percent, the Lab Report must fall within an exception to the hearsay rule. (3) "In Lake , the California Supreme Court held that despite their hearsay nature, blood and urine test reports prepared by government forensic laboratories are admissi

2009But it shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over a hearsay objection in a civil action." ( Molenda v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 974, 987 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 792 ] ( Molenda ).) Thus, to support the DMV's finding that Miyamoto was driving with a blood-alcohol content in excess of 0.08 percent, the Lab Report must fall within an exception to the hearsay rule. (3) "In Lake , the California Supreme Court held that despite their hearsay nature, blood and urine test reports prepared by government forensic laboratories are admissi

2009Since the court did not adhere to the legal principles that govern the admissibility of this evidence, we conclude that the court abused its discretion when it excluded the Lab Report. ( Concord Communities v. City of Concord, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1417; Department of Parks & Recreation v. State Personnel Bd., supra, 233 Cal.App.3d at p. 831 .) Because the Lab Report was admissible under the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule, it was sufficient in itself to support the DMV's finding that Miyamoto was driving a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol level in excess of 0.08

2009(Concord Communities v. City of Concord, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1417; Department of Parks & Recreation v. State Personnel Bd., supra, 233 Cal.App.3d at p. 831 .) Because the Lab Report was admissible under the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule, it was sufficient in itself to support the DMV’s finding that Miyamoto was driving a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol level in excess of 0.08 percent.

2009Since we are presented with records from an electronic database, the critical date for the purpose of the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule is the date that the test results were first recorded in the laboratory's electronic database, which was March 23, 2007. ( Martinez, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 126 [in applying the timeliness requirement from § 1280 "to computer printouts from a database, we consider the length of time between the act, condition, or event and the date of its recording, not the date of its eventual retrieval by computer printout"].) *1220 The appellate cour

2009(Martinez, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 126 [in applying the timeliness requirement from § 1280 “to computer printouts from a database, we consider the length of time between the act, condition, or event and the date of its recording, not the date of its eventual retrieval by computer printout”].) The appellate court examined the admissibility of forensic lab reports in DMV proceedings under section 1280 in Glatman, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th 700 and Molenda, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th 974 .

2002(Davenport, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 143; McKinney v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 519, 525 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 18 ].) Test *65 results from authorized laboratories, performed by public employees within the scope of their duties, are admissible under the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule.

2002(Davenport, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 143; McKinney v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 519, 525 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 18 ].) Test *65 results from authorized laboratories, performed by public employees within the scope of their duties, are admissible under the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule.

2002(Davenport, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 143; McKinney v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 519, 525 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 18 ].) Test *65 results from authorized laboratories, performed by public employees within the scope of their duties, are admissible under the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule.

1995(County of Sonoma v. Grant W., supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1450-1451.) The two exceptions are essentially the same, except that the former applies to business records instead of official *640 records and “ ‘requires a witness to testify as to the identity of the record and its mode of preparation in every instance. . . .’ ” (People v. Dunlap (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1468, 1477 [ 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 204 ].) Given this similarity, decisions analyzing the business records exception are applicable to our analysis in this case. 4 As the court explained in Fisk v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 127 C

1995(County of Sonoma v. Grant W., supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1450-1451.) The two exceptions are essentially the same, except that the former applies to business records instead of official *640 records and “ ‘requires a witness to testify as to the identity of the record and its mode of preparation in every instance. . . .’ ” (People v. Dunlap (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1468, 1477 [ 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 204 ].) Given this similarity, decisions analyzing the business records exception are applicable to our analysis in this case. 4 As the court explained in Fisk v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 127 C

1994(Cf. Poag v. Winston (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1161, 1179 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 330 ]; Rader Co. v. Stone (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 10, 23 [ 223 Cal.Rptr. 806 ]; People v. Abelson (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d Supp. 16, 19 [ 164 Cal.Rptr. 369 ].) Consequently, it would make no legal difference if the statement of certification were located elsewhere on the local form. 4 Even if this were the issue, we express serious doubt as to whether the report would fit into the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule.

1994(Cf. Poag v. Winston (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1161, 1179 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 330 ]; Rader Co. v. Stone (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 10, 23 [ 223 Cal.Rptr. 806 ]; People v. Abelson (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d Supp. 16, 19 [ 164 Cal.Rptr. 369 ].) Consequently, it would make no legal difference if the statement of certification were located elsewhere on the local form. 4 Even if this were the issue, we express serious doubt as to whether the report would fit into the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule.

1994(Cf. Poag v. Winston (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1161, 1179 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 330 ]; Rader Co. v. Stone (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 10, 23 [ 223 Cal.Rptr. 806 ]; People v. Abelson (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d Supp. 16, 19 [ 164 Cal.Rptr. 369 ].) Consequently, it would make no legal difference if the statement of certification were located elsewhere on the local form. 4 Even if this were the issue, we express serious doubt as to whether the report would fit into the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule.

1994(Cf. Poag v. Winston (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1161, 1179 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 330 ]; Rader Co. v. Stone (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 10, 23 [ 223 Cal.Rptr. 806 ]; People v. Abelson (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d Supp. 16, 19 [ 164 Cal.Rptr. 369 ].) Consequently, it would make no legal difference if the statement of certification were located elsewhere on the local form. 4 Even if this were the issue, we express serious doubt as to whether the report would fit into the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule.

1994(Cf. Poag v. Winston (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1161, 1179 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 330 ]; Rader Co. v. Stone (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 10, 23 [ 223 Cal.Rptr. 806 ]; People v. Abelson (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d Supp. 16, 19 [ 164 Cal.Rptr. 369 ].) Consequently, it would make no legal difference if the statement of certification were located elsewhere on the local form. 4 Even if this were the issue, we express serious doubt as to whether the report would fit into the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule.

1994(Cf. Poag v. Winston (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1161, 1179 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 330 ]; Rader Co. v. Stone (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 10, 23 [ 223 Cal.Rptr. 806 ]; People v. Abelson (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d Supp. 16, 19 [ 164 Cal.Rptr. 369 ].) Consequently, it would make no legal difference if the statement of certification were located elsewhere on the local form. 4 Even if this were the issue, we express serious doubt as to whether the report would fit into the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule.