San Francisco Criminal Lawyer BlogDMV license suspension hearing violated Due Process
Clarke v. Gordon (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 12, 2024, No. G062856) 2024 WL 4163081, at *1
Summary: Clarke appeals from the judgment which denied his petition for a writ of mandate which challenged an administrative decision of the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to suspend his driver’s license. An administrative per se (APS) hearing conducted by the DMV following his arrest for driving under the influence (DUI) resulted in the suspension of his license. Clarke argues the administrative decision must be reversed because (1) the manner in which the DMV conducted the administrative hearing violated due process as determined in California DUI Lawyers Assn. v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 517, 532-533, 292 Cal.Rptr.3d 608 (DUI Lawyers); and (2) his refusal to submit to either a breath or blood test should be excused. The Court of Appeal agreed with the first contention and reversed the trial court’s denial of his petition for a writ of mandate and on remand directed the court to grant the petition.
DMV Hearings and Due Process
In DUI Lawyers the court ruled that the DMV’s policy of assigning a single employee to act as both the DMV’s advocate and the adjudicator in an APS hearing violated due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the California Constitution. In Knudsen v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 186, 193, 320 Cal.Rptr.3d 70 (Knudsen), the court indicated the relevant issue to be determined in assessing a due process claim in this context is not the title applied to the DMV employee; it is the function actually performed by that employee during the APS hearing. If the DMV hearing officer (HO) acted as both an advocate and an adjudicator during the hearing, the hearing failed to satisfy due process requirements.
Here, the DMV employee’s effort to separate her role as the case adjudicator from her role as an advocate for the DMV was unsuccessful and Clarke was denied due process. Knudsen found a similar due process violation constituted structural error. The Court agreed and reversed the trial court’s denial of Clarke’s petition for a writ of mandate.
Clarke’s second hearing was on September 14, 2022, before HO Wallace
Clarke stipulated that at the time of his arrest (1) the officer had reasonable cause to believe he was driving a motor vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code 1 sections 23152, 23153, or 23154; and (2) he was lawfully arrested.
Clarke contested the allegations that (1) he refused to submit to or failed to complete a chemical test; and (2) he refused to submit to or complete a chemical test after being requested to do so by a peace officer.
At the outset of the hearing, Clarke’s counsel asked HO Wallace to clarify how the hearing would be conducted in light of the DUI Lawyers decision. The HO explained, “[w]e’re to proceed with just a Hearing Officer. It’s no longer advocates—… [¶] … —with just a Trier of Fact. And that was as of September 6.” Clarke objected to proceeding in that manner. The HO overruled the objection; she then offered and admitted into evidence the DMV’s three exhibits.
Due Process Rights
“No State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (U.S. Const., 14th Amend.) “[A] driver’s license is ‘property’ that … may not [be seized by the state] without satisfying the requirements of the due process guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment.” (Mackey v. Montrym (1979) 443 U.S. 1, 20, 99 S.Ct. 2612, 61 L.Ed.2d 321.) Article I, section 7 of the California Constitution contains a similar provision.
In DUI Lawyers, the Court concluded that “[a]lthough procedural fairness does not prohibit the combination of the advocacy and adjudicatory functions within a single administrative agency, tasking the same individual with both roles violates the minimum constitutional standards of due process.” (DUI Lawyers, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at p. 532, 292 Cal.Rptr.3d 608.) “Accordingly, we conclude combining the roles of advocate and adjudicator in a single person employed by the DMV violates due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and the California Constitution article I, section 7.” (Ibid.)
In Knudsen, the court concluded that, to resolve the appellant’s due process claims, “it is first necessary to determine whether a particular driver’s due process right to an impartial adjudicator was violated. That determination is made by assessing the administrative record and the revocation decision to see if the public hearing officer actually acted as both an adjudicator and an advocate, or merely acted as an adjudicator and a collector and developer of evidence. If the record demonstrates that a public hearing officer actually acted as an advocate, then the driver’s due process right to an impartial adjudicator is violated. A violation of the due process right to an impartial adjudicator is a structural error, then the driver is entitled to a new APS hearing before a constitutionally impartial adjudicator.” (Knudsen, supra, 101 Cal.App.5th at p. 193, 320 Cal.Rptr.3d 70.)
Disposition
The trial court’s order denying Clarke’s petition for writ of mandate was reversed and the case wasremanded with the direction that the court grant Clarke’s petition. If the DMV elects to conduct a new APS hearing in this matter, that de novo hearing shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the due process requirements set forth in DUI Lawyers.
The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.