The Department of Motor Vehicles regulates licensing and takes administrative and disciplinary action which is separate and apart from a criminal proceeding involving driving under the influence of alcohol.

The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) proceeding is quite different than the courtroom proceeding in a criminal matter. The hearings are more informal, and are run by a Driver Safety Office (DSO) Hearing Officer, who is an employee of the Department of Motor Vehicles and is not a lawyer, much less a judge. The standard of proof in these hearings is a "preponderance" of the evidence, a much lower standard than criminal court.

Many DSO Hearing Officers do not understand the law as it relates to driver’s license suspension, or are afraid to rule in favor of a Licensee as they see it as their job to "support" the Department of Motor Vehicles.

This makes administrative hearings with the DMV somewhat problematical. However, our office has been successful in winning these hearings as we make a special effort to clarify the issues for the hearing officer, as well as using their own training materials and internal memoranda as authority for our position. We also do full discovery, issuing subpoenas for the arresting officer's training records, and the maintenance and calibration records for any machine used to give a blood alcohol test to our client.

These hearings are very technical, and the chances of a person winning without legal help is slim. DMV does not care if you need to drive to get to work or to school.

The DMV sometimes discourages individuals from seeking a hearing, telling them that they "can’t win". The documentation given to an individual arrested for DUI is quite confusing, and does not clearly explain that a hearing must be requested in a very short period of time.

Changes in the law make it imperative that a hearing be requested within ten (10) days of the date of arrest.

This can be done by the driver themselves, but one should follow-up the telephone call to the DMV with a written request for such a hearing.

This request will be done by our office if we represent you. If you wish to do it yourself, please see Ed Kuwatch’s Website for a document you can use. (Mr. Kuwatch  is the originator of the term "Department of Villains and Morons" to describe the California DMV, and the author of the "Bible" on California Drunk Driving Defense.)

Our office has also represented numerous individuals who have had difficulties with their driving privilege that is not related to a DUI arrest.

A number of moving violations may threaten the loss of one's license, but California law provides certain exceptions to a license suspension for too many "points".

If you have accumulated up to 4 points in a 12-month period, 6 points in a 24-month period, or 8 points in a 36-month period, then your driving privileges can be suspended by the DMV as a "negligent operator".

Also, you may have your driving privileges suspended or revoked for being involved in an automobile accident, for failing a drive test, or for being referred to the DMV for a priority re-examination by a police officer. However, you do have rights. You have the right to have a DMV hearing to contest the potential suspension or revocation, and, if successful, have the DMV action set aside

HEALTH ISSUES- LOSS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

Involvement in a health-related accident such as seizures or loss of consciousness due to health problems such as diabetes (Mr. Allen's oldest son, a college student, has type I diabetes), or other administrative difficulties with the DMV are active areas of practice. The DMV is often unsophisticated and ill-informed in their approach to these situations, and proper representation, and expert testimony, can be quite helpful.

The DMV will suspend for one year the driving privilege of any driver who is under the age of 21, and who has .01 % (or greater) of alcohol in their blood. This is a severe sanction, and should be actively defended.

Certain case law provides that a portable breath machine carried in a police vehicle (commonly called a PAS test: "Preliminary Alcohol Screening") is not assumed to be as reliable as the larger breath test machine in a custody facility. Certain foundational facts must be established by the DMV.

It is our experience that some police departments do NOT properly train their personnel in the use of the PAS test, or properly maintain and calibrate the PAS device. This means that a minor’s chance to keep their driving privilege is better than is usually believed.

However, certain technical issues must be brought forth by the issuing of subpoenas before a minor can effectively defend their driving privilege in a "zero tolerance" hearing.

Should the DMV erroneously rule against a driver, a Writ of Mandamus may be filed in the Superior Court. This is a complex legal proceeding that orders the Department of Motor Vehicles to return the driving privilege pending a formal hearing in front of a Superior Court Judge. While this can be a lengthy and sometimes rather costly  proceeding, for those drivers who must drive for a living, or those drivers facing a one (1) year or more suspension, it is often very cost effective.

Our office practices in the area of DMV Writs, and has recently litigated them in Orange, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties. Two writs we have won were appealed by the DMV to the 4th Appellate District, both resulting in published opinions;  Baker v. DMV  (2000) 81 Cal.App. 4th 1167, (we lost, and the California Supreme Court denied our application for review) We won Jacobson v. DMV (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 1331, regarding the admissibility of a blood alcohol test.