Court Broadens Grounds for DUI License Suspensions

SAN FRANCISCO â€”  The California Supreme Court on Thursday broadened the evidence the state can use to suspend the license of a driver who is stopped on suspicion of drunk driving.

The court ruled unanimously that the hearing officer can consider a report from a police officer who was not the arresting officer, and a laboratory report of a blood or urine test without requiring the preparer of either report to swear it was true under penalty of perjury.

Relaxed standards of evidence are authorized by law for such hearings, consistent with their purpose of protecting the public by quickly suspending the licenses of drunk drivers, said the opinion by Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar.

A prominent defense lawyer in drunk-driving cases said the ruling would encourage the Department of Motor Vehicles to cut corners at license suspension hearings.

“They insist on conducting hearings without live witnesses,� said attorney Ed Kuwatch, who filed arguments in the case on behalf of the California Public Defenders Assn. “The point is to save the government a bunch of money at the expense of fair hearings.�

Motorists who are suspected of drunk driving are given the choice of taking a breath test on the spot or submitting a blood or urine sample immediately after being taken into custody. While criminal charges are pending, they are notified that their license will be suspended in 30 days and that they have the right to a hearing.

At the hearing, the DMV must show that the arrest was legal and that the person was driving with a blood-alcohol content of at least 0.08%. If those are proved, the driver’s license is suspended for four months, or for a year if the driver had a prior drunk-driving conviction.

The case involved Richard Lake, who was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving in July 1994 after a collision in the San Mateo County community of San Carlos. He challenged his license suspension because no declaration under penalty of perjury had been required for a police officer’s report that said he was the driver, or the lab report that found his blood-alcohol content at 0.19%.

The Supreme Court upheld lower court rulings upholding the suspension of Lake’s license.

Werdegar said state law requires the arresting officer to file a sworn report with the DMV but allows other evidence without an oath, as long as it is judged to be reliable.

“The admission of such evidence will facilitate the immediate removal of dangerous drivers from the road,� she said.