California DMV Hearings – Court of Appeals Determined Individual’s Due Process Rights were Violated
In Petrus v. State of California Department of Motor Vehicles, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held that due process was violated where the defense is denied the opportunity to present a meaningful defense. The defense must be given the time needed to review and possibly rebut test results.
The three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, published an earlier decision finding the California Department of Motor Vehicle’s failure to provide the results of a blood-alcohol test to a driver until “minutes” before the driver’s license revocation hearing was a violation of due process. In Petrus v. Department of Motor Vehicles, the Court held “Due process requires that Petrus be given a meaningful opportunity to present his case. Petrus’s defense required examination of the blood test results because that was an element the DMV must prove at the hearing.” Moreover, “Petrus’s counsel initially received the blood test results minutes before the hearing despite his request for it approximately one month before the hearing. We conclude the phrase ‘prior to the hearing’ does not equate to receiving discovery minutes before the hearing.”
In essence, the driver’s due process rights were violated by San Diego DMV’s Hearing Officer Jacqueline Denney because he was deprived of the opportunity to present a meaningful defense to the DMV’s proceeding to suspend his driving privilege. Petrus’s DUI/DMV attorney received the blood test results only minutes before the commencement of the hearing at the beginning of which he objected to receiving discovery on the day of the hearing. The blood test showed a purported BAC of .18%. The hearing officer asked the DUI lawyer if he was ready to proceed and he said yes. The hearing officer then identified the exhibits she intended to introduce into evidence and asked if the driver objected.
The DUI lawyer objected to the blood test report on the basis of discovery rules violation. The hearing officer overruled the objection and admitted the report into evidence. The DUI attorney then asked for a continuance, which was denied because counsel made no offer of proof as to why additional time and a continuance was necessary.
No offer of proof was needed as the court overturned the suspension. Due process requires full and fair administrative hearings that provide drivers a “meaningful opportunity to present their case.” Government Code section 11513 (b) states that each party has the right to rebut the evidence against him or her. Petrus had sufficient time to review the number indicating the blood alcohol content, but not an opportunity to rebut that evidence.
The court noted that in Glatman v. Valverde, the appellate court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the forensic report was not prepared “at or near the time of the recorded event” because the record contained no support for the assertion that the analysts promptly entered the test results into the computer database, thus the suspension was set aside.
DMV hearings in California DUI cases are like mini-trials with evidence and testimony presented.
Note that in DMV administrative per se (“APS”) hearings the hearing officer acts as the prosecutor and judge. When a hearing officer violates someone’s due process rights during a DMV hearing in a California DUI case, the injured party can ask the courts to take a second look.
