Is The DMV’s Current DUI Procedure Unconstitutional?

As a practicing Criminal Defense Attorney, DUI charges are among the most common offenses I encounter. In California, driving under the influence or having a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of 0.08 or higher can lead to a charge under California Penal Code 23152. If convicted of VC 23152(a)/(b), the penalties may include up to six months in jail, a six-month license suspension for the first offense (increasing to a year for subsequent convictions), court fines of up to $2,000, and the requirement to install an Ignition Interlock device at your own expense.

Additionally, participation in a DUI class for 3-9 months after the first offense and 18 months for multiple offenses is mandatory. It’s important to note that a DUI conviction has long-term consequences as it remains on your record for years.

Within ten days of a DUI arrest, it is crucial to contact the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for a DMV hearing in California. These hearings, although typically considered one-sided as they are presided over by a DMV Hearing Officer who is also a Police Officer, have an impact on your driver’s license and driving privileges independent of your criminal case.

In our legal system, unbiased hearings are valued, as everyone is innocent until proven guilty. However, concerns arise when the same person deciding your case is both advocating for the police and acting as the Judge simultaneously.

Please note that seeking legal advice from an experienced attorney is advisable in DUI cases as each case is unique and requires personalized guidance.

The California DUI Lawyers Association has been actively advocating for unbiased due process in California drivers’ rights. Recently, the Second Appellate District of California ruled in favor of CADL vs. DMV, supporting the association’s position. While the DMV has not provided any further comments, it is highly likely that they will seek review from the state’s Supreme Court. The DMV maintains that their employees have always conducted fair hearings in the past.

It is noteworthy that California law prohibits all state agencies, except the DMV, from assigning their own employees to preside over a hearing. However, there have been recent changes in progress. Going forward, a dedicated Hearing Officer will be selected from one office, while a Trier of Fact will be chosen from a separate Driver Safety Office. The DMV believes that this modification ensures a fair hearing process. The Hearing Officer, still acting as a Judge, is now accompanied by a former Hearing Officer, referred to as a “Trier of Fact,” from another Driver Safety Office, responsible for presenting the evidence. However, this adjustment may not effectively address the existing due process concerns. It is akin to collaborating with a purse snatcher to retrieve the stolen purse. Introducing a second purse snatcher, who has no incentive to act against their compatriot, doesn’t necessarily resolve the issue.

Only time will reveal the effectiveness of this new process, or whether it will lead to another lawsuit questioning the drawbacks of having two hearing officers instead of one. The California DUI Lawyers Association remains vigilant in monitoring the situation.