 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sanchez v. Alexis5/14/1982
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO
Civ. No. 27261
1982.CA.40692 ; 182 Cal. Rptr. 593; 131 Cal. App. 3d 709
May 14, 1982
CANDIDO ORESEO SANCHEZ, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT,
v.
DORIS ALEXIS, AS DIRECTOR, ETC., DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT
Superior Court of Orange County, No. 358618, Leonard Goldstein, Judge.
Ronald R. Talmo for Plaintiff and Appellant.
George Deukmejian, Attorney General, and Melvin R. Segal, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant and Respondent.
Opinion by Morris, P. J., with Kaufman and McDaniel, JJ., concurring.
Morris
Appellant Candido Sanchez was lawfully arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. He refused to submit to a chemical test under the implied consent law and his license was suspended. He filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the superior court challenging the suspension of his driving privilege. His petition was denied and this appeal followed. The California Supreme Court stayed the effect of the license revocation pending final determination of this appeal.
Sanchez contends that suspension of his license violated settled state law as well as procedural due process. The basis of this appeal is the failure of the arresting officer to advise Sanchez that if he refused to submit to a test that refusal "may be used against him in a court of law." No other issues are raised.
In 1980 Vehicle Code section 13353 was amended to add that the arrestee "shall also be advised by the officer that, in the event of refusal to submit to a test, such refusal may be used against him in a court of
law." A 1981 amendment did not change the substance of this provision.
It is agreed that the arresting officer did not advise Sanchez that failure to submit could be used against him in a court of law. Sanchez argues that the legal effect of this omission is to preclude the revocation of his driving privilege. The Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles (hereafter Department) argues that this advisement has no relationship to administrative license suspension proceedings under the implied consent law.
Our conclusion is that the advisement which was omitted was not intended by the Legislature to apply to the Department's administrative license suspension procedure. The most obvious reason for this conclusion is supplied by the face of the statute. The warning required is that refusal "may be used against him in a court of law." The Department's revocation procedure is administrative and does not require the involvement of a "court of law." The only reasonable interpretation is that the reference is to the criminal trial which may result due to the driving under the influence . It is the rule that the refusal to submit to a chemical test may be used against the driver in a criminal trial. (People v. Sudduth (1966) 65 Cal. 2d 543, 546 [55 Cal. Rptr. 393, 421 P.2d 401]; People v. Roach (1980) 108 Cal. App. 3d 891, 894 [166 Cal. Rptr. 801].)
Refusal to submit to a chemical test is the cornerstone of the administrative procedure. Subdivision (c) of section 13353 specifies the issues which are to be covered in the administrative proceeding. They are: (1) whether there was reasonable caus
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|