Articles Posted in New Case Law

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.

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

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.