MacHado

MacHado v. Department of Motor Vehicles

Good Law
10 Cal. App. 4th 1687·13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 457·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 1346·92 Daily Journal DAR 15545·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9365
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 19, 1992H009429California4,474 words

Opinion

Opinion

Premo, J.

Appellant James Machado’s driver’s license was suspended by the Department of Motor Vehicles (hereafter, DMV) on the ground that he failed to submit to chemical testing following his arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol. (Veh. Code, §§ 23157, 13353.) At appellant’s request, an administrative hearing was held on the propriety of the suspension. Appellant claimed he was not the driver at the time of the arrest and therefore was not required to submit to a test. The hearing officer found that appellant was the driver at the time in question and affirmed the suspension.

Appellant then filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the Santa Cruz County Superior Court. The court concluded that the hearing officer’s finding that appellant was the driver was not supported by substantial evidence, but nevertheless upheld the suspension. The court held that the implied consent law set forth in section 13353 only requires that an officer have probable cause to arrest for driving under the influence before submission to chemical testing is mandatory. In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on Rice v. Pierce (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1460 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 832 ], which so…

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.