Articles Posted in DMV Issues

Pipitone v. Department of Motor Vehicles (Cal. Ct. App., July 21, 2026, No. 2D CIV. B348229) 2026 WL 2094997, at *1–5

Summary: Pipitone appealed the denial of his petition for writ of mandate challenging the DMV’s revocation of his driving privilege after he pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale. The drugs had been discovered during a traffic stop while he was driving. His appeal claimed that there was no basis for finding that his crime involved the use of a motor vehicle, and second, that the DMV failed to prove it received the type of certified court abstract required by Vehicle Code section 13350 before revoking his license. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.

Facts and procedural background:In 2020, law enforcement stopped Pipitone while he was driving and found more than a pound of methamphetamine and other evidence suggesting drug sales. He was charged with possession of methamphetamine for sale and transportation-related drug offenses. In 2024, he pleaded no contest to the possession-for-sale charge.

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.

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

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

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.