Hildebrand

Hildebrand v. Department of Motor Vehicles

Good Law
152 Cal. App. 4th 1562·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 1130·2007 D.A.R. 10·62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 234
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 27, 2007D048540California4,053 words

Opinion

Opinion

Huffman, J.

Plaintiff Dale Hildebrand appeals the trial court’s judgment denying his petition for writ of mandate, upholding the administrative suspension by respondent, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), of his driving privileges. (Veh. Code, § 13353; Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5.) Hildebrand contends there was insufficient admissible evidence introduced at the DMV’s administrative hearing to establish he was driving at the relevant time because the only such evidence introduced at the hearing was the inadmissible hearsay statement of a non-peace officer.

Hildebrand further claims the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that he had refused to complete a chemical test after appropriate admonishment, and therefore suspension of his license should be set aside.

We conclude the trial court’s decision to deny the petition for writ of mandate was based on substantial evidence and affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Arrest

Around 2:30 a.m. on July 17, 2005, fire department engine 3 was returning to the station when its occupants observed a vehicle stuck on the train tracks in the 1100 block of West Laurel Street. Fire Captain G.…

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.