 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kodani v. Reed10/4/1999
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robert H. O'Brien, Judge. Affirmed.
Russell Masaji Kodani appeals from a judgment denying his petition for writ of mandate, which sought to overturn the suspension of his driver's license by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Appellant's license was suspended because he was driving with an excessive blood alcohol content. Contrary to appellant's contention, there was reasonable cause to stop his vehicle based on the arresting officer's observation that appellant was not wearing his seat belt.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 22, 1998, at approximately 2 a.m., California Highway Patrol (CHP) Officer T. A. Snyder observed appellant driving while not wearing his seat belt and thus in violation of the law mandating seat belt use. As indicated in the officer's written report submitted to the DMV, the officer was driving his CHP patrol vehicle north on Topanga Canyon Boulevard and preparing to make a right turn onto Victory Boulevard when he observed appellant's 1989 blue Honda CRX stopped at the traffic light and headed west on Victory Boulevard. Officer Snyder noticed appellant was "not wearing his seat belt." The officer drove behind appellant's vehicle. As appellant entered the intersection, the officer activated his patrol car's lights, and appellant pulled over to the side of the road.
Appellant had bloodshot eyes, an odor of alcoholic beverage, an unsteady gait and slurred speech. He failed several field sobriety coordination tests. Appellant also twice blew into a preliminary alcohol screening device, and registered 0.14 percent and 0.12 percent blood alcohol content on the two preliminary tests. The officer arrested appellant for driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, 23153), and took him to the Van Nuys jail where he submitted to breath tests to determine his actual blood alcohol content. Two tests each revealed a blood alcohol content of 0.12 percent, well in excess of the legal limit of 0.08 percent. Officer Snyder then processed an administrative suspension of appellant's driver's license and issued him a temporary driver's license. (See Veh. Code, § 13353.2.)
Appellant requested and received a hearing before the DMV and contested the basis for the suspension of his driver's license. He was represented by counsel, who submitted a letter brief asserting various evidentiary objections and legal arguments. A telephonic hearing was held. The DMV received into evidence, over appellant's objections, Officer Snyder's sworn statement, the officer's arrest report and the breath test results revealing appellant's blood alcohol content. Appellant presented no testimony or any other evidence.
The DMV hearing officer's findings and decision upheld the suspension of appellant's driver's license. The hearing officer found that there was sufficient evidence Officer Snyder had reasonable cause to believe appellant was driving a motor vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152 or 23153, appellant was placed under lawful arrest, and appellant was driving the vehicle while he had a blood alcohol content in excess of the legal limit of 0.08 percent.
Thereafter, appellant filed a petition for a writ of mandate challenging the administrative order. (See Veh. Code, § 13559; Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5.) The superior court found that the arresting officer's uncontradicted statement that he observed appellant not wearing a seat belt constituted reasonable cause to detain appellant, that the weight of the evidence supported the DMV's findings, and that the DMV's decision to suspend appellan
Page 1 2 3 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|