Leal

Leal v. Gourley

Good Law
100 Cal. App. 4th 963·123 Cal. Rptr. 2d 220·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4472·2002 Daily Journal DAR 8651·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6920
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 31, 2002A096718California3,433 words

Opinion

Opinion

McGUINESS, J.

Government Code section 11435.60 requires that certain state agencies notify parties who may appear before them of their right to an interpreter at hearings conducted by the agencies. Section 11435.60 also requires that the affected agencies give notice of the right to an interpreter “at the same time that each party is advised of the hearing date.”

In this case, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)—an agency subject to the provisions of section 11435.60, pursuant to section 11435.15, subdivision (a)—notified Carlos Q. Leal that he had a right to an interpreter at an administrative hearing (admin per se hearing) at which the propriety of the suspension of his driver’s license would be adjudicated. However, DMV did not notify him of that right at the same time it notified him of the hearing date. Instead, it did so at an earlier point in time—when Leal was arrested for driving under the influence and was issued a notice of suspension/ revocation of his license by the arresting officer, Oakland Police Officer Eric Lewis.

As detailed below, we conclude that DMV’s failure to inform Leal of his right to an interpreter at the time it notified him of the date of his admin…

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.