Blitzstein
Blitzstein v. Department of Motor Vehicles
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Low, J.
In this case, we hold that the advisements required by the Implied Consent Law (Veh. Code, §§ 23157, 23157.5) to be given to a *140 motorist suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs are neither inherently confusing nor ambiguous, and plaintiff’s refusal to chemical testing was not excused.
Plaintiff Lou Blitzstein had his driver’s license suspended for six months following an administrative hearing wherein the referee found that he failed to take a blood test for drugs after being requested to do so by the arresting officer. (Veh. Code, § 13353, subds. (a), (b).) He petitioned for a writ of mandate in the superior court, claiming that he was confused and misled by the officer and did not know his driving privileges would be suspended if he refused to take the test. The trial court found in favor of plaintiff and issued the writ. In its statement of decision, the court found that the admonitions required to be given by the Vehicle Code were inherently confusing and contradictory, and that the arresting officer added to the confusion by not determining if plaintiff understood the admonitions. We disagree and reverse.