Frase

Frase v. Gourley

Good Law
102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 432·2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 965·2000 Daily Journal DAR 13483·85 Cal. App. 4th 762·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10098
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 19, 2000G025876California1,150 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sills, J.

The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) suspended Stuart Fred Prase’s driver’s license following an administrative per se hearing. When Frase challenged the suspension in court, the DMV was unable to file the complete administrative record because it had lost a portion of the hearing—the testimony of Frase and his expert—and refused to bear the cost of reconstructing it. We affirm the judgment setting aside the suspension.

I

Early in the evening on October 7, 1998, Frase was involved in a minor automobile accident in Irvine. Results of a blood test indicated he had been driving with a blood-alcohol content in excess of the legal limit. Based upon that report, his driver’s license was suspended.

Frase requested an administrative per se hearing. Witnesses at the hearing were Frase and Darrell Clardy, his expert. Clardy contended that forensic test results were flawed because Prase’s blood-alcohol level was rising. He submitted his own test results to prove it. In upholding the suspension, the hearing officer discounted Clardy’s testimony as “too speculative.”

Frase filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus in the superior court and asked the DMV to prepare the…

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.