Lipari

Lipari v. Department of Motor Vehicles

Good Law
16 Cal. App. 4th 667·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 618·20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 246·93 Daily Journal DAR 7520·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4432
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 15, 1993A059023California2,387 words

Opinion

Opinion

Chin, J.

William Lipari appeals from a judgment dismissing his petition for writ of mandate, in which he sought an order setting aside the suspension of his driver’s license by respondent Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). He contends that the trial court erred in finding that, under Vehicle Code section 13559, it lacked jurisdiction to hear his petition. We agree. Therefore, we reverse.

Factual and Procedural Background

On November 10, 1991, Officer Stangland of the Sausalito Police Department took Lipari into custody following his arrest for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. After transporting Lipari to the Mill Valley Police Department, Stangland administered two intoxilyzer breath tests to determine the blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) of Lipari’s blood. The tests showed that Lipari had a BAC of 0.24 percent. Accordingly, Stangland issued an administrative per se order of suspension under section 13353.2, which requires suspension of the driving privilege of anyone who drives with a BAC of 0.08 percent or more. The DMV upheld the suspension after administrative review.

Lipari then filed a petition for writ of mandate and request for stay in the Superior…

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.