People v. Superior Court (Moore)

In Baldwin v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1630 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 422 ] (Baldwin), we held that the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) did not violate principles of double jeopardy when it revoked Mr. Baldwin’s driver’s license after it received notice of his third conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol. We analyzed the United States Supreme Court’s opinions in Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch (1994) 511 U.S. 767 [ 128 L.Ed.2d 767 , 114 S.Ct. 1937 ] (Kurth Ranch), and United States v. Halper (1989) 490 U.S. 435 [ 104 L.Ed.2d 487 , 109 S.Ct. 1892 ] (Halper), and concluded that they did not compel us to apply double jeopardy principles to driver’s license revocations. ( Baldwin, supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1638-1642.)

The Napa County Superior Court has barred prosecution of drunk driving charges against 15 defendants who previously lost temporarily their licenses in DMV administrative per se suspension proceedings. We disagree and reaffirm the principles stated in Baldwin . We direct issuance of a writ of mandate to vacate the superior court’s order.

Facts and Procedures

Between April 10 and August 31, 1995, the Napa…