Maxsted

Maxsted v. Department of Motor Vehicles

Good Law
14 Cal. App. 3d 982·1971 Cal. App. LEXIS 1045·92 Cal. Rptr. 579
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 1, 1971Civ. 36755California1,711 words

Opinion

Opinion

Thompson, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment granting a peremptory writ of mandate directing appellant to vacate its action suspending respondent’s driver’s license for failure to submit to a blood, breath, or urine test as required by the implied consent law of the State of California (Veh. Code, § 13353). We reverse the judgment and direct that the trial court deny the writ.

Facts

Read in the light most favorable to the findings of fact of the trial court, the record reveals the following. On July 10, 1969, respondent was lawfully arrested by police officers of the City of Long Beach who had reasonable cause to believe that he had been driving a vehicle upon a highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. At the time of his arrest, respondent was advised of his Miranda rights by each of two officers. Officer Lewis informed respondent that he had a right to have a lawyer present “during any questioning.” Officer Sims phrased the Miranda warning in terms that respondent “had the right to have an attorney present before he said anything.” While respondent was being booked, Sergeant Johnson repeated the Miranda warning in essentially the same phraseology used by Sims.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.