DMV Writs
Issue 2.4 : March 2008

McCoy's Recent DMV Writs Granted

Selected Cases

L.S. V. DMV, SANTA BARBARA CASE NO. 01158920

This writ was the first of two we got in this case. The DMV admitted telephonic testimony of the toxicologist despite our objections to telephonic testimony. Based on that telephonic testimony, DMV suspended her license.
We filed a writ petition, and DMV offered to resume the hearing without telephonic testimony. Since we knew they could not prove their case without it, we agreed.

L.S. V. DMV, SANTA BARBARA CASE NO. 1164810

At the reconvened hearing, DMV had a surprise for us. Since they could not use telephonic testimony, they had no way to establish BAC (toxicologists will not testify in person in Santa Barbara). In a novel approach, DMV decided they would just use the hearsay blood report as the sole evidence of BAC.

We filed a writ petition, and again DMV called before the hearing. This time they offered to set aside the suspension entirely.

C.L. V. DMV, VENTURA CASE NO. CIV236058

This was a case where a hearing officer granted herself a continuance without good cause. She wasn't ready for the hearing and simply announced she would do it on another date.

We filed a writ petition, and DMV set aside the suspension voluntarily without a court hearing.

M.N. V. DMV, SANTA BARBARA CASE NO. 1131394

This case was a so-called Zero Tolerance case based on a preliminary breath test reading of 0.01%. DMV suspended Mr. N.'s license despite the uncontradicted expert testimony that the margin of error rendered the 0.01% reading meaningless.

The superior court actually denied our writ, but the court of appeal reversed, telling the judge and DMV to set aside the suspension and return Mr. N.'s license.