DMV Issues

May 23, 2026

Driver’s license cannot be suspended for driving an electric bike under the influence

Beale v. Department of Motor Vehicles (Cal. Ct. App., May 21, 2026, No. H052612) 2026 WL 1430603, at *1

Summary: Beale appealed from a denial of a petition for writ of mandate against the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) after it suspended his driver’s license for riding an electric bicycle under the influence of alcohol and refusing to submit to a blood alcohol test. Beale argues that an electric bicycle is not a “motor vehicle” under Vehicle Code section 13353 and that there was therefore no basis for suspending his license. The Court agreed with Beale that the statute does not authorize the suspension of an electric bicycle rider’s driver’s license, even if the rider refuses a police officer’s request to take a chemical test.

Facts: On August 16, 2022, at approximately 7:30 p.m., San Jose Police Officer Corini responded to a report of a man on a “motorized bicycle” who had hit a curb and injured his head. Officer Corini located Beale andsmelled alcohol on Beale’s breath and observed that he had bloodshot eyes. Corini askedBeale a series of “intoxication questions.” After initially agreeing to perform field sobriety exercises, Beale then refused to do several of them because of balance issues. Beale also refused to consent to a preliminary alcohol screening test.

May 10, 2026

Chemical breath tests are unreliable when officer does not observe driver continuously for 15 minutes when administering the test

by Uthman Law Office

Summary: The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) suspended Myers’s driver’s license for four months for driving with a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 percent or more. (Veh. Code, § 13353.2.) Myers appealed the suspension and an administrative per se (APS) hearing was held. An administrative hearing officer (AHO) upheld the suspension, concluding that the arresting officer complied with all laws and regulations, requiring a 15-minute period of continuous observation before administering a chemical breath test (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 17, § 1221.1 (title 17)).

The trial court overturned the suspension and granted Myers’s petition for writ of mandate on the ground that the observation period under title 17 was not satisfied based on video evidence from an arresting officer’s body worn camera. On appeal, the DMV contends (1) the court erred in concluding the video evidence rebutted the presumption that the arresting officer complied with the 15-minute observation period before administering the first chemical breath test; and (2) even assuming the officer did not comply with title 17, Myers did not establish the violation resulted in an inaccurate test result because other evidence of intoxication corroborated the chemical breath test. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

Procedural Background

March 29, 2026

An appearance of bias by a DMV Hearing Office is insufficient to show a Due Process violation

by Uthman Law Office

Chi v. Department of Motor Vehicles (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 24, 2026, No. A172237) 2026 WL 809967, at *1–7

Summary: Chi appealed the trial court’s denial of his petition for a writ of mandate challenging the suspension of his driving privileges by the Department of Motor Vehicles. Chi asserted that the department’s administrative hearing officer violated his due process rights by acting as a prosecutor rather than a neutral adjudicator. The Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed.

The California Supreme Court granted review in a similar case, Romane v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1002, 1019, 1021, 332 Cal.Rptr.3d 104, review granted August 13, 2025, S291093 (Romane). Romane is part of a line of recent involving the DMV—that examine this same due process issue. Some of these cases conflict with the Supreme Court’s precedent by employing an appearance of bias standard for assessing an adjudicator’s impartiality and by overlooking the presumption of impartiality that courts afford to adjudicators.

February 1, 2026

DMV must disclose name of person submitting request for driver reexamination form “DS 699”

by Uthman Law Office

RICHARD LOUIS BROWN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant and Respondent. (Cal. Ct. App., Jan. 30, 2026, No. C102554) 2026 WL 251816, at *1–2

Facts: Department of Motor Vehicles (Department) temporarily suspended Brown’s driver’s license after conducting a driver reexamination initiated by an undisclosed third-party reporter. Brown filed a petition for writ of mandate with the trial court demanding the Department provide the name of the reporter; the trial court denied the petition. On appeal, appellant contends the nondisclosure of the reporter’s identity violates due process. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

Procedural Background

March 29, 2025

Officer’s failure to inform Kazelka that the PAS testing was voluntary does not require the test’s exclusion at DMV hearing

by Uthman Law Office

Kazelka v. California Department of Motor Vehicles (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 27, 2025, No. A163664) 2025 WL 923651, at *1–2

Summary: At an administrative hearing, a California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) hearing officer concluded that Kazelka had been driving under the influence and temporarily suspended his license. The trial court later granted Kazelka’s petition for writ of mandamus and reversed the order of suspension, finding that the hearing officer improperly admitted and relied upon a pre-arrest breath test. The DMV now challenged the trial court’s exclusion of the breath test as contrary to California law. The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed.

Facts

April 6, 2024

Due process violated when DMV Hearing Officer acts as an advocate

by Uthman Law Office

Knudsen v. Department of Motor Vehicles (Cal. Ct. App., Apr. 4, 2024, No. F085992) 2024 WL 1453228, at *1

Summary: Knudsen appealed the suspension of his driver’s license at an administrative per se (APS) hearing. A hearing officer for the Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) concluded that Knudsen had driven his car with a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08 percent or greater. Knudsen challenged the hearing officer’s decision through a writ of mandate in the Kern County Superior Court. The writ of mandate was denied, and the suspension sustained, by the trial court. On appeal, Knudsen argues in part that his state and federal due process rights were violated because the hearing officer who conducted the APS hearing was not constitutionally impartial.

California DUI Lawyers Assn. v. DMV (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 517, 532–533. (DUI Lawyers) held that an administrative public hearing officer who acts as both an advocate and adjudicator violates a driver’s due process right to an impartial adjudicator. How to resolve a driver’s due process challenge to an APS hearing following DUI Lawyers has not been addressed by California courts. The Court of Appeal concluded that to resolve such a challenge, it is first necessary to determine whether a particular driver’s due process right to an impartial adjudicator was violated. According to DUI Lawyers, that determination is made by assessing the administrative record and the revocation decision to see if the public hearing officer actually acted as both an adjudicator and an advocate, or merely acted as an adjudicator and a collector and developer of evidence. If the relevant documents demonstrate that the public hearing officer did not act as an advocate, then the driver’s due process right to an impartial adjudicator was not violated, and the constitutional issue is resolved. If the relevant documents demonstrate that a public hearing officer actually acted as an advocate, then the driver’s due process right to an impartial adjudicator is violated. In the latter circumstance, because we conclude that a violation of the due process right to an impartial adjudicator is a structural error, then the driver is entitled to a new APS hearing before a constitutionally impartial adjudicator.

December 3, 2023

DMV license suspension upheld where blood collection for BAC test did not comply with regulations

by Uthman Law Office

Phillips v. Gordon (Cal. Ct. App., Nov. 29, 2023, No. A165289) 2023 WL 8266154, at *1–2

Summary: Phillips appealed from the trial court’s denial of her petition for review of an order of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) suspending her driver’s license for driving with a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 percent or more. Phillips argues the trial court erred because the DMV failed to provide sufficient evidence of the reliability of the way in which her blood was collected for the BAC test. She contends she rebutted the presumption that the certified phlebotomy technician (CPT) drew her blood in a proper manner by showing that the CPT was not supervised and the procedure she followed was not approved as required by applicable regulations and statutes. The Court of Appeal agreed that Phillips rebutted the presumption of reliability but affirmed the trial court’s order because evidence introduced at the hearing nonetheless established the reliability of the manner of collection of Phillips’ blood.

Background:One night in September 2020, around 11:23 p.m., a California Highway Patrol officer pulled Phillips over and arrested her for driving under the influence in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (a). The officer’s partner took Phillips to a facility in Burlingame and requested a phlebotomist.

March 18, 2023

Police Officer Testimony by Telephone at DMV Administrative Hearing is Improper when Driver Objects

by Uthman Law Office

Ramirez v. Superior Court of Kern County (Cal. Ct. App., Feb. 9, 2023, No. F082588) 2023 WL 2399712

Summary: A driver petitioned for writ of mandate ordering Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to set aside its driver’s license suspension order following his arrest for driving under the influence (DUI). The Superior Court granted the petition. DMV appealed as real party in interest. The Court of Appeal held that:

Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) provision, addressing when a presiding officer can conduct a hearing by telephone, applied to administrative per se (APS) adjudicative hearing conducted by DMV; APA’s provision, stating that a presiding officer “may not” conduct a hearing by telephone if a party objects, and regulation adopted to implement the APA provision in context of DMV adjudicative hearings, are mandatory, substantive procedural protections; and substantial evidence supported implied finding that motorist was prejudiced by police officer testifying by telephone.

April 16, 2022

DMV’s Administrative Hearings to Suspend Licenses after DUI’s Violates Due Process

by Uthman Law Office

Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES et al., Defendants and Appellants. (Cal. Ct. App., Apr. 15, 2022, No. B305604) 2022 WL 1125370

DMV Administrative Hearings after DUI Arrests and challenge by California DUI Lawyers

The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) conducts administrative hearings to suspend a driver’s license after an arrest for driving under the influence. At these hearings, the DMV hearing officers act both as advocates for the DMV and as triers of fact. The DMV authorizes its managers to change hearing officers’ decisions, or order the hearing officers to change their decisions, without notice to the driver.

January 15, 2022

Branded Title and Restitution

by Uthman Law Office

People v. Newsom (Cal. Ct. App., Jan. 10, 2022, No. B312652) 2022 WL 92779, at *1

What is “Branded Title”

A “branded title” can reduce a car’s resale value.