DMV Victory at an APS Hearing—San Bernardino Driver Safety Office

Case History: California Drivers Advocates was hired to assist a client whose driver license was in jeopardy of being suspended following a traffic collision and DUI arrest in the City of Chino Hills.  Our 33 year old client lives in Riverside and is employed as a sales manager where driving is a critical requirement of continued employment.  As the divorced father of two small children, he is the sole supporter for his kids.  The loss of his driver license would mean the loss of his job and the inability to provide for his children.

On a Saturday night in February 2016, our client was just leaving a social event at a Country Club in Chino Hills.  He was unfamiliar with the area and so when he encountered an unexpected “T” intersection, he drove through the intersection, jumped a curb and  plummeted down a steep embankment coming to rest about 150 feet off of the roadway.

Our client was uninjured but he didn’t have his cell phone with him so he walked back to the Country Club to summon help.

At some point an unknown witness discovered the car off the roadway and called the CHP.  The CHP dispatch then linked the call to the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department and deputies were dispatched.  When the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department arrived, it took them some time to find the vehicle and, of course, our client was not present.

After returning to the Country Club to call for a tow truck, our client returned to his car and was arrested for DUI.

DMV’s Position: The California DMV’s position was crystal clear. Under the “Official Duty Presumption,” the DMV Hearing Officer presumed that the arresting Sheriff’s Deputy was honest and accurate about the facts reported in the police report.  The DMV assumed that our client was the driver of the subject vehicle and that he was intoxicated when he drove his car down the embankment.  The hearing officer also presumed our client had driven drunk because the blood test revealed his blood/alcohol concentration to be above .08%.

Essentially when we entered the hearing, our client was presumed “guilty” until proven innocent.

Our Defense: The defense of our client began with a detailed interview to determine all of the facts involved.  When he returned to the scene, our client admitted that he was the driver of the car but the deputy failed to ask him when the crash had occurred.  This would later prove to be critical.

In preparation for our hearing, we issued a number of subpoenas for the production of additional items of evidence.  We issued subpoenas for copies of the original 911 audio recording, the Sheriff’s Department dispatch logs and any audio or video evidence.  We visited the scene of the accident to gain a complete understanding of the layout of the roadway and the slope our client had driven down. Numerous photographs were taken.  It became abundantly clear that anyone passing by on the roadway could not see where our client’s car had come to rest.

When the DMV sent us the “discovery” in the case, we learned the department had subpoenaed the arresting deputy sheriff to provide live testimony at the hearing.  Knowing this ahead of time allowed us to be prepared to thoroughly cross-examine the deputy.

Outcome: During the hearing, we argued that many of the DMV’s exhibits were flawed. The secret to success in this case, however, was the cross-examination of the arresting deputy.  By questioning the deputy in a methodical “step by step” fashion, we were able to lead him down the road and get him to say what we needed.  The deputy testified that when he arrived at the scene, he could not see our client’s vehicle from the roadway.  Because this occurred in a desolate area with no lighting, minimal traffic and late at night, it was entirely possible that the accident could have gone unreported for an extended period of time.  At one critical point, the deputy testified he had no way of knowing what time the crash had occurred and that he had failed to ask our client that question.

This was pivotal as the DMV must establish that a chemical blood or breath test is taken within 3 hours of the termination of driving.  If the 3-hour element cannot be established, the DMV loses its presumption in the accuracy of the blood alcohol concentration.

At the conclusion of the APS Hearing, the hearing officer took the extraordinary step of telling us on the spot that we had won.  The very next day, we received official notice that the hearing officer had “Set Aside” the suspension and our client’s driving privilege was fully reinstated.    Our client suffered no APS suspension, was not required to attend a DUI school, and was not required to purchase an SR-22 Form.  This was similar to being found “Not Guilty” by a jury.

As a result of our effort, our client remains employed and is able to provide for his two children.  In this case, a thorough investigation and focused cross-examination of the arresting deputy were the keys to success.  He has learned valuable lesson to never drink and drive, but that lesson did not have to come at the expense of his job.

Call CDA Today.  Let Us Go to Work on Your Case. The DMV Defense Experts at California Drivers Advocates have been fighting and winning DMV Administrative Per Se hearings for years.  We excel at every type of administrative hearing handled by the DMV and have a history of winning.  Call us and let us get you back on the road.