DMV administrative hearing in California

2013(Lake, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 455 .) “The administrative hearing is held before either the director of the DMV, a hearing board or, more usually, a department hearing officer (§ 14104.2, subd. (a)).” (Id. at p. 456.) In a DMV administrative hearing in a refusal case, the DMV is required to suspend a person’s driving privilege if it determines by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) a “peace officer had reasonable cause to believe that the person had been driving a motor vehicle” under the influence of alcohol or drugs (§ 13557, subd. (b)(1)(A)), (2) “[t]he person was placed under arrest”

2009Discussion In a DMV administrative hearing, the DMV is required to suspend a person’s driving privilege if it determines by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) a peace officer had reasonable cause to believe that the person had been driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs, (2) the person was placed under arrest, and (3) the person was driving with “ ‘0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood.’ ” (Lake, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 456 .) The DMV bears the burden of proof.

2022(See also MacDonald v. Gutierrez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 150, 159 [“so long as a sworn report is filed, it is consistent with the relaxed evidentiary standards” of a DMV administrative hearing that “an unsworn report filed by the arresting officer” can be considered]; People v. Gomez (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 531, 540-541 [rejecting contention the trial court “erred in failing to strike the hearsay testimony of [d]etectives . . . because they merely repeated information relayed to them by other officers” in light of the “evidentiary rule drawn from People v. Harvey (1958) 156 Cal.App.2d 516 and People

2022(See also MacDonald v. Gutierrez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 150, 159 [“so long as a sworn report is filed, it is consistent with the relaxed evidentiary standards” of a DMV administrative hearing that “an unsworn report filed by the arresting officer” can be considered]; People v. Gomez (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 531, 540-541 [rejecting contention the trial court “erred in failing to strike the hearsay testimony of [d]etectives . . . because they merely repeated information relayed to them by other officers” in light of the “evidentiary rule drawn from People v. Harvey (1958) 156 Cal.App.2d 516 and People

2013Fourth Amendment principles regarding: warrantless arrests “The Fourth Amendment protects ‘[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.’ In conformity with the rule at common law, a warrantless arrest by a law officer is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed.” (Devenpeck v. Alford (2004) 543 U.S. 146, 152 .) When the arrest occurs in the home or, as in this case, an attached garage, additional principles come into p

2013(Lake, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 455 .) “The administrative hearing is held before either the director of the DMV, a hearing board or, more usually, a department hearing officer (§ 14104.2, subd. (a)).” (Id. at p. 456.) In a DMV administrative hearing in a refusal case, the DMV is required to suspend a person’s driving privilege if it determines by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) a “peace officer had reasonable cause to believe that the person had been driving a motor vehicle” under the influence of alcohol or drugs (§ 13557, subd. (b)(1)(A)), (2) “[t]he person was placed under arrest”

2013The court concluded the DMV could consider the statements in the citations because they constituted part of the Ohio record of conviction as statements lodged in the citation or charging document. ( Isaac, supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at pp. 862-863.) The Isaac court emphasized the governing standards in an administrative proceeding differed from those found in a criminal trial: “[W]e must keep in mind the vast difference between the protections afforded a driver whose license may be suspended as the result of an administrative determination by DMV, which may properly be made on the basis of the rec

2013The court concluded the DMV could consider the statements in the citations because they constituted part of the Ohio record of conviction as statements lodged in the citation or charging document. ( Isaac, supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at pp. 862-863.) The Isaac court emphasized the governing standards in an administrative proceeding differed from those found in a criminal trial: “[W]e must keep in mind the vast difference between the protections afforded a driver whose license may be suspended as the result of an administrative determination by DMV, which may properly be made on the basis of the rec

2006(See, e.g., In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396 , 414 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 453 ]; see generally People v. Slayton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1076, 1084 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 561 , 32 P.3d 1073 ]; City of Santa Monica v. Stewart (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 43, 69-70 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 72 ].) We decline to reach such questions when it is unnecessary to do so.

2006(See, e.g., In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396 , 414 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 453 ]; see generally People v. Slayton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1076, 1084 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 561 , 32 P.3d 1073 ]; City of Santa Monica v. Stewart (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 43, 69-70 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 72 ].) We decline to reach such questions when it is unnecessary to do so.

2006Administrative Hearing Burdens of Proof/Standard of Appellate Review This court addressed the burdens of proof at a DMV administrative hearing in Manriquez v. Gourley (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1227 [ 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 209 ] (Manriquez).

2006Administrative Hearing Burdens of Proof/Standard of Appellate Review This court addressed the burdens of proof at a DMV administrative hearing in Manriquez v. Gourley (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1227 [ 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 209 ] (Manriquez).

2006Substantial Evidence Supports the Trial Court’s Decision to Grant the Petition Pointing out that in Williams, supra, 28 Cal.4th 408 , the California Supreme Court held PAS test results admissible in criminal driving under the influence trials to prove a driver’s BAC, the DMV contends PAS test results should likewise be admissible as substantive evidence of a driver’s BAC in a DMV administrative hearing, as long as the proper foundational showing is made.