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

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

The Department received a request for driver reexamination form “DS 699” from an undisclosed reporter asking the Department to reevaluate Brown’s ability to drive safely. The Department sent Brown a letter, dated June 26, 2024, notifying him “it is necessary for the [D]epartment to review your driving qualifications.” The letter stated: “After a review of your medical information, you may be required to complete a written, vision, or driving test and/or you may be required to appear virtually by video or by telephone or in-person.” The letter also warned Brown his license would be suspended if he did not have a medical form completed by a physician and returned by July 20, 2024.

Appellant submitted a driver medical evaluation completed by a physician. The physician noted, “[Appellant] is a new patient …. Therefore, any prior health issues, if any, are unknown to me at this time. He is currently alert and oriented, and on [the] day of [the] exam, did not exhibit issues affecting his driving.” However, the physician checked “[y]es” for a box asking: “Would you recommend a driving test be given by [the Department]?”

The Department held a remote reexamination hearing on August 24, 2024. The hearing officer started by marking three exhibits for examination: A “form DS-699, the request for driver re-examination”; Brown’s completed medical evaluation; and Brown’s driving record. The hearing officer then questioned Brown about his health and Brown asserted he had no medical issues, did not take any prescriptions, and did not consume alcohol. The hearing officer then told Brown he would have to take a written and driving test. Brown retook both tests and failed the driving test on September 5, 2024.

The Department suspended Brown’s license effective September 15, 2024. The Department explained in a written report that the reexamination hearing officer signed: “The ability of [Brown] to operate a motor vehicle safely is affected because of a mental condition in that: [Brown] submitted a driver medical evaluation …. [Brown’s] physician did not advise against driving but recommended a driving test given by the [D]epartment…. [Brown] did not demonstrate the ability to drive safely. If Brown was allowed to drive at this time he may cause and/or contribute to an accident causing injury to [him]self or other motoring public. For these reasons, cause exists to suspend [Brown’s] driving privilege.” The Department also sent Brown an order of suspension indicating his license was suspended because his “drive test result(s) was/were unsatisfactory.” The order also advised Brown of his right to request a hearing.

A second remote hearing was held on September 16, 2024. The second hearing was conducted by a different hearing officer who overturned Brown’s suspension at the conclusion of the hearing. This officer noted the only issue identified in Brown’s medical form was elevated blood pressure. Though the physician checked the box recommending a driving test, there was no medical issue associated with that recommendation so Brown “shouldn’t have been subject to all the testing, like a written test or a driving test.” Even though appellant did not pass the driving test, “there shouldn’t have been a driving test involved on this matter.” Thus, the second hearing officer “terminate[d] that action and return[ed] [appellant’s] driving privilege back to him.”

Brown filed a petition for writ of mandate with the superior court on September 17, 2024. The petition asked the court to direct the Department “to release the name of [the] person … who filed a fraudulent [r]equest for [d]river [r]eexamination (DS 699) complaint against Brown and for the [c]ourt per the [c]omplaint [to] hold this person … criminally responsible for providing false information to the [Department].”

Brown’s Due Process Claims challenging anonymous complaints to DMV triggering license examination

Brown argued, “This appeal arises from a fundamental violation of procedural due process.” Brown demanded that the Department to disclose the reporter’s identity, asserting refusal to do so violates due process.  “[The Department’s] decision to proceed with a reexamination based solely on an anonymous complaint, without any corroborating evidence, violates procedural fairness and due process requirements.”

No due process violation

The right to a driver’s license is entitled to due process. Courts have routinely found citizens have a property interest in driver’s licenses such that “ ‘ “[a] driver’s license cannot be suspended without due process of law.” ’ ” (California DUI Lawyers Assn. v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 517, 529.) “This is but an application of the general proposition that relevant constitutional restraints limit state power to terminate an entitlement whether the entitlement is denominated a ‘right’ or a ‘privilege.’ ” (Bell v. Burson (1971) 402 U.S. 535, 539.)

There is no per se due process violation when the Department does not disclose the identity of a third-party reporter because it is not a per se due process violation to withhold a criminal informant’s identity.

The use of the reexamination form here did not create a meaningful risk of erroneous deprivation because the reporter was not a material witness. There is no indication the Department relied on the confidential reporter’s form to suspend appellant’s license.

Brown received notice and a hearing prior to the Department suspending his license, the two foundational requirements for due process.

Because there was no due process violation, the Court affirmed  the trial court’s order denying Brown’s petition for writ of mandate.

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only.  Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.