Valverde

Lee v. Valverde

Good Law
100 Cal. Rptr. 3d 867·178 Cal. App. 4th 1069·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1742
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 29, 2009E046731California4,138 words

Opinion

Opinion

Miller, J.

Plaintiff and respondent Ronald Alan Lee was arrested for driving under the influence (Veh. Code, §§23152, 23153) and had his driver’s license suspended. Lee requested an administrative per se hearing in order to challenge his license suspension. The hearing officer upheld the suspension. Lee filed a petition for writ of mandate in the superior court seeking an order setting aside the suspension of his license. The superior court granted the petition ruling that the document establishing that Lee was driving with a blood-alcohol concentration (BAG) of 0.08 percent or higher was inadmissible hearsay and improperly admitted at the hearing below.

On appeal, George Valverde, as Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles (the Department), contends that the trial court erred in concluding that the forensic report was not admissible under Evidence Code section 1280 (the public records exception). Lee replies that the court correctly determined that the forensic report was inadmissible and, hence, properly issued a writ of mandate ordering the Department to set aside its order suspending his driving privileges. We hold that the superior court abused its discretion in…

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.