![]() The court said the department violated state law by assigning the prosecutor of a business whose beverage license was under review to prepare a fact-finding report and send it to the department while the decision was still pending. In its ruling, the appeals court cited a 2006 state Supreme Court decision that found a similar conflict of interest in the practices of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The DMV has added staff for hearings where required by the appellate court ruling, and that practice will remain in place.” But “some drivers’ attorneys are complaining that hearing officers have not really changed their understanding of their roles,” he said.ĭMV spokesperson Chris Orrock said the court’s action “does not impact the department’s current and future hearing practices. ![]() Gerstein said drivers are now reporting that the DMV has changed procedures in some of its offices since the ruling and brought in other officers to argue for license suspension. Similar procedures apply to drivers arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs. If the DMV determines the driver’s blood-alcohol content was at least 0.08%, the license is suspended until the driver’s criminal case is resolved, which can take many months. “The irreconcilable conflict between advocating for the agency on one hand, and being an impartial decision-maker on the other” creates “an unacceptable risk of bias,” Justice Brian Currey said in the 3-0 decision.īob Gerstein, an attorney for the California DUI Lawyers Association, said issues at the hearings can include whether an officer had a legitimate basis for stopping the vehicle and whether the breath-testing equipment was properly calibrated. ![]() ![]() Officials noted that the DMV’s official manual directs those officers to be “fair and impartial.”īut the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles said in its April 15 ruling that the officers’ dual roles stacked the deck against the driver. Sued by a group of defense lawyers, the department argued that there was no evidence of bias by its hearing officers, who conduct more than 44,000 DUI hearings each year. A 2005 California law prohibited all state agencies - except the DMV - from assigning an employee to preside over a hearing if the same employee has acted as an advocate or investigator in the same case.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |