 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ormonde v. Department of Motor Vehicles3/17/1981
8) 85 Cal. App. 3d 439, 443 [148 Cal. Rptr. 513].) He argues, however, that since license
suspension pursuant to Vehicle Code section 13353 requires a lawful arrest as a prerequisite to chemical test administration, the civil penalty of license suspension should not be imposed unless the arrestee has been specifically informed of the arrest. We see no purpose in adding magic words to the apprehension of drunk drivers, and find substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of DMV and the trial court that plaintiff was arrested at the stop site and knew then that he was arrested.
Plaintiff's contention of defective advisement of the consequences of a refusal to submit to a test is also without merit. It is true that the use of the word "could" alone is defective because it reduces the admonition to one of bare possibility, which thus amounts to no warning at all. (Decker v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1972) 6 Cal. 3d 903 [101 Cal. Rptr. 387, 495 P.2d 1307]; Giomi v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1971) 15 Cal. App. 3d 905 [93 Cal. Rptr. 613].) However, when the specific and accurate warning is given, the later use of less accurate predictions of consequences does not invalidate the advisement. (Smith v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 1 Cal. App. 3d at p. 503.) In view of the strong public policy which led to the adoption of the statute and the obligation of courts to construe it liberally to effect its objectives (see Bush v. Bright (1968) 264 Cal. App. 2d 788 [71 Cal. Rptr. 123]), we agree with the trial court that the sequence of advisements in this case was of no consequence.
The judgment is affirmed.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
|