 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Alderette v. Department of Motor Vehicles8/18/1982
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO
Civ. No. 53180
1982.CA.40389 ; 135 Cal. App. 3d 174; 185 Cal. Rptr. 172
August 18, 1982
MANUEL CORDOVA ALDERETTE ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT
Superior Court of Monterey County, No. 76283, Richard M. Silver, Judge.
Miguel A. Hernandez for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
George Deukmejian, Attorney General, and Eleanor Nisperos, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant and Respondent.
Opinion by Smith, J., with Rouse, Acting P. J., and Miller, J., concurring.
Smith
Appellants holders of farm labor vehicle driver certificates who have been convicted of violating section 23102, subdivision (a) of the Vehicle Code (driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor), appeal from a judgment of the Monterey County Superior Court which denied their petition for writ of prohibition and mandate challenging the constitutionality of section 12520.5, which provides for the automatic and mandatory revocation of farm labor vehicle driver certificates upon conviction of violation of section 23102, subdivision (a).
The sole issue on appeal is the constitutionality of section 12520.5, specifically, whether it violates either the equal protection or due process clauses of the United States and California Constitutions.
The facts are not in dispute. Appellants possessed farm labor vehicle driver's certificates and were employed as bus drivers/foremen of farm labor work crews. Section 12519 requires every person who operates a farm labor vehicle to possess such a certificate. Appellants were convicted of misdemeanor drunk driving (§ 23102, subd. (a)) while operating
their private vehicles off duty, and their certificates were revoked pursuant to section 12520.5.
Appellants subsequently unsuccessfully sought a writ of mandate and prohibition challenging the constitutionality of section 12520.5. This timely appeal followed.
Discussion
I. Equal Protection
In considering appellants' equal protection challenge to section 12520.5, we begin by determining the appropriate test to be used by this court in judging the constitutional validity of the statute. Appellants urge that the applicable standard of review is strict scrutiny because the statute affects a fundamental interest.
Appellants argue that in light of McConville v. Alexis (1979) 97 Cal. App. 3d 593 [159 Cal. Rptr. 49], in which the Court of Appeal held that possession of a driver's license rises to the level of a fundamental right, "retention of one's certificate upon which one's chosen profession depends should be classified as a fundamental interest." Appellants' reliance on McConville is misplaced. In McConville, the Court of Appeal was faced with the question of whether a trial court should apply the "substantial evidence" or the "independent judgment" standard of review in passing upon a challenge to a quasi-judicial administrative decision by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) which resulted in a six-month suspension of an individual's driver's license. In upholding the constitutionality of the implied consent law (§ 13353) which provides for a mandatory six month suspension of a driver's license upon failure to submit
Page 1 2 3 4 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|