TORRANCE, CA – January 9, 2026 – Noted California criminal defense attorney Matthew J. Ruff today announced a significant victory for his client, resulting in the complete dismissal of all charges in a high-stakes case. The dismissal was granted by the court based on a successful defense motion arguing a critical violation of the client’s constitutional rights.
The charges, as contained in Court case number 100410B (redacted for privacy reasons), included serious allegations of drug sales and cultivation, were dropped after Attorney Ruff demonstrated that law enforcement and the prosecution failed to adhere to the fundamental protections guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. This outcome upholds the principle that all individuals are entitled to due process and protection against government overreach.
“Our Constitution provides crucial safeguards against unlawful government action, and when those rights are violated, the courts have a duty to intervene,” said Attorney Ruff. “This dismissal is a testament to the importance of an aggressive defense that scrutinizes every aspect of a case to ensure justice prevails.”
This details of the case involved a large-scale Marijuana cultivation investigation in the Mojave area.
Key Facts:
Operation Size: Deputies located 63 greenhouses, most containing over 24,000 live marijuana plants.
Evidence & Testing:
Over 200 pounds of processed marijuana and cannabis were located and seized.
Field tests and subsequent lab tests on samples confirmed high THC content (marijuana), not CBD (hemp).
Other Seizures:
Over $25,000 in U.S. currency was found and seized as drug proceeds
Multiple semi-automatic handguns were also located.
Matthew J. Ruff has a distinguished record of achieving favorable outcomes for clients by exposing flaws in police procedure, scientific evidence, and constitutional compliance, with a high success rate in getting charges dismissed or significantly reduced across Southern California courts.
About Matthew J. Ruff, Attorney at Law:
Matthew J. Ruff is a top-rated criminal defense lawyer and Top Tier DUI defense attorney with over 30 years of experience serving clients in Los Angeles, Orange, and Kern Counties. He specializes in defending individuals against a wide range of criminal charges, including DUI, domestic violence, drug possession, and other felony and misdemeanor cases, and is known for his commitment to client communication and trial advocacy.
In a significant case out of Oceano Dunes California (SLO County), California DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff leveraged the scientific principle of retrograde extrapolation to successfully challenge his client’s breath test results and achieve a dismissal of the license suspension. This victory hinged on proving the client was still in the “absorptive phase” of alcohol consumption, meaning his blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at the time of driving was below the legal limit of 0.08%, despite higher readings later at the police station.
The Facts of the Case
15:08: Client pulled over by law enforcement.
15:16: Client arrested after displaying objective signs of intoxication (odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes).
15:40: First breath test administered, result: 0.089% BAC.
15:43: Second breath test administered, result: 0.091% BAC.
Actual Police Report (Redacted)
The “Rising BAC” Defense Strategy
The core of the defense was to exploit the time gap between the initial stop (15:08) and the breath tests (starting at 15:40). California law prohibits driving at or above a 0.08% BAC, but if the tests are taken while alcohol levels are still rising, the results may not reflect the actual level at the time of driving.
Attorney Ruff used a linear extrapolation (also known as retrograde extrapolation) to estimate the client’s BAC at the moment he was pulled over.
Calculate the Rate of Increase: The client’s BAC increased from 0.089% to 0.091% over a 3-minute interval (15:40 to 15:43). This rapid increase was key evidence that the client was in the absorptive phase.
Project Backward: Mr. Ruff demonstrated that by projecting this rate backward in time to 15:08 (32 minutes before the first test), the client’s BAC would have been below 0.08%.
Calculation: The increase was 0.002% in 3 minutes. Over 32 minutes, the projected drop in BAC was approximately 0.021%.
Result: 0.089% (at 15:40) – 0.021% = ~0.068% at the time of driving.
This expert analysis showed that the client was likely innocent of the core DUI charge (driving with 0.08% or more BAC).
The Outcome: License Suspension Set Aside
By highlighting the discrepancy between the time of driving and the time of testing, and providing a scientifically sound estimate of a sub-0.08% BAC, Matthew Ruff successfully challenged the validity of the evidence at the DMV hearing. In addition, Matthew showed other “evidence” relied upon by the police officer was not reliable, such as the conclusions drawn from a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test.
The DMV hearing officer agreed, and the administrative per se (APS) license suspension order was set aside, and the arrest was removed from the client’s DMV record. This outcome is considered a total victory, protecting the client’s driving privileges and avoiding severe penalties.
Actual Order of Dismissal (Set Aside)
It is also noteworthy that Matthew got the criminal charges of VC 23152a and VC 23152b dismissed in Court following negotiations with the DA, thereby avoiding a trial in Court. The client, a commercial driver, was elated. The consequences he was facing was a lifetime disqualification of his commercial license.
Would you like to know more about how Matthew Ruff has used challenges to police observation periods or breath machine accuracy to win other cases? Visit Matthew’s website Best DUI Defense.
Matthew Ruff is a top-rated criminal defense and DUI attorney in Southern California with over 30 years of experience. He specializes exclusively in DUI and criminal law, having handled over 4,000 cases including standard DUIs, high BAC cases, and underage offenses.
Top-rated DUI defense attorney Matthew Ruff has successfully secured a “Set Aside” of a driver’s license suspension in a contested DMV administrative hearing, despite breath test results of .12/.13, by exposing critical flaws in the police officer’s sworn statement, Ruff demonstrated that the Department of Motor Vehicles failed to meet its burden of proof, resulting in a full dismissal of the suspension action against his client and immediate reinstatement of driving privileges.
The Case: “Reckless Driving” Without the Facts
The case centered on a traffic stop initiated by law enforcement for alleged “reckless driving.” and subsequent breath test results of .12%/13% BAC. However, the official report (Form DS 367) relied entirely on a single, vague statement: “the subject was contacted after being pulled over for reckless driving by CHP officer Fromm”.
Actual Redacted Police Report of Case Matthew Won
Torrance DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff argued that this statement was legally insufficient. Under California law, an officer must possess “specific and articulable facts” to justify a detention, rather than “mere legal conclusions”. Ruff contended that simply labeling driving as “reckless” is a subjective opinion, not an observational fact.
The Winning Strategy: Exposing Hearsay and Lack of Evidence
The defense strategy focused on two major legal deficiencies in the DMV’s case:
1. The “Conclusory Evidence” Argument
Matthew Ruff utilized the DMV’s own Driver Safety Manual to argue that an officer must document specific behaviors—such as swerving, near-misses, or extreme speed—rather than just checking a box or writing a conclusion like “reckless driving”.
“A statement that a driver was ‘reckless’ is a legal conclusion, not a fact… Under DMV guidelines, ‘reckless driving’ is a subjective label that does not meet the constitutional threshold unless supported by a detailed description.”
2. The “Multiple Hearsay” Defense
Crucially, the officer who wrote the report was not the officer who witnessed the alleged driving. This created a “multiple hearsay” issue. Ruff argued that because the reporting officer lacked personal knowledge of the facts, the report was “untrustworthy” and failed to qualify for the Official Records exception to the hearsay rule.
“A reporting officer who did not witness the stop lacks the personal knowledge required to make the record ‘trustworthy’.”
The Result: License Suspension Set Aside
Because the DMV bears the burden of proving the stop was lawful, and because the evidence provided was merely a conclusion without supporting facts, the hearing officer was compelled to rule in favor of the licensee. The attorney successfully argued that accepting such a vague report would violate the driver’s Due Process rights to a fair hearing by a neutral fact-finder.
This victory highlights the importance of retaining an experienced DUI attorney who understands the nuances of the DMV administrative process and knows how to challenge the “official duty presumption”.
About Matthew Ruff
Matthew Ruff is a seasoned criminal defense attorney with over 30 years of experience defending clients in DUI and DMV hearings across California.
Matthew Ruff, Attorney at Law, is proud to announce his recognition by the independent rating service, Three Best Rated, as one of the Top 3 Best Rated DWI & DUI Lawyers for 2025. This prestigious local award underscores the firm’s unwavering commitment to providing superior legal defense for the Torrance community.
The Three Best Rated award is the result of a rigorous 50-point inspection process that evaluates local businesses on a variety of metrics including reputation, history, complaints, ratings, and overall client satisfaction. Unlike other accolades, businesses cannot pay to be listed, ensuring an unbiased selection that reflects genuine community trust and professional excellence.
“Being acknowledged as a top-tier defender in the very community where I live and work is a true honor,” said Matthew Ruff. “My commitment to the residents of Torrance, especially our local dock workers and port employees, is to provide aggressive advocacy and ensure their rights are protected when facing complex DUI and criminal charges”.
With over 30 years of experience, Matthew Ruff has built a reputation as a fierce litigator known for challenging evidence and securing favorable outcomes, including dismissals of charges and avoidance of license suspensions.
The Torrance office of Matthew Ruff, Attorney at Law, is conveniently located at 18411 Crenshaw Blvd., Torrance CA 90504. Residents facing a DUI or criminal charge are encouraged to seek a consultation to understand their rights and explore defense strategies.
At the Law Offices of Matthew Ruff, we understand that a DUI charge can feel like an insurmountable weight on your future. Our primary goal is to lift that burden through aggressive advocacy and deep legal expertise. Today, we are proud to share a recent success story from a client who saw their life-changing results firsthand.
Client Spotlight: A Path to Relief
We recently received this feedback from a client navigating the complexities of the California legal system:
“Mr. Matthew Ruff helped me get my DUI charge expunged and reduced to a dry reckless driving offense, which was a huge relief. From start to finish, he was professional, knowledgeable, and always took the time to explain everything clearly. He truly cared about my case and worked hard for the best possible outcome. I’m very grateful for his help and would highly recommend him to anyone needing a DUI lawyer.”
Securing a “Dry Reckless” (California Vehicle Code 23103) reduction is a significant victory. Unlike a standard DUI, a dry reckless charge:
Does not carry the same “priorable” weight as a DUI.
Typically results in lower fines and shorter probation periods.
Is often viewed more favorably by employers and licensing boards.
Does not result in a mandatory license suspension or requirement of an IID (ignition interlock device) on your car.
Matthew was also able to win the DMV hearing in the case resulting in the reinstatement of driving privileges and set aside of the dui arrest from the client’s DMV record. Furthermore, by following this reduction with an expungement, this client can now move forward with a clear record, ensuring that past mistakes do not dictate their future opportunities.
Dedicated Legal Representation in 2025
Legal standards and courtroom tactics evolve every year. Whether you are facing a first-time offense or seeking to clear your record, Matthew Ruff remains committed to providing the same professional, knowledgeable, and compassionate counsel described in this review.
If you or a loved one are facing DUI charges, don’t navigate the system alone. Experience the relief that comes with having a dedicated advocate in your corner. Matthew has a documented history of winning DUI cases, including “Not Guilty” Verdicts and reduction of charges.
Facing criminal charges for Public Intoxication (PC 647(f)) and Resisting Arrest (PC 148) can be a terrifying experience, especially for a college student with their entire career ahead of them. In Long Beach, attorney Matthew Ruff has proven that the most effective defense often happens behind the scenes—before a case ever reaches a courtroom.
The Strategy: Proactive Pre-Filing Intervention
In a notable recent case, a local college student was arrested after an encounter with police in the busy nightlife district of Long Beach. Realizing that a criminal record could jeopardize the student’s financial aid, internships, and future job prospects, Matthew Ruff immediately went to work.
Rather than waiting for the scheduled court date, Ruff initiated a pre-filing intervention. This involves:
Direct Outreach to the Prosecutor: Ruff contacted the Long Beach City Prosecutor’s Office shortly after the arrest.
Presenting a “Human” Element: He provided evidence of the student’s academic achievements and lack of a prior criminal history, arguing that a permanent record was a disproportionate punishment for a one-time mistake.
Legal Arguments Against PC 647(f): Ruff challenged the prosecution’s ability to prove the student was truly unable to care for their own safety—a high legal bar required for a Public Intoxication (drunk in public) conviction.
The Result: No Charges Filed
By intervening early, Ruff successfully convinced the prosecutor that the interests of justice would not be served by moving forward. The City Prosecutor agreed to reject the case, meaning:
The Charges Were Dropped: No formal criminal complaint was ever filed with the court.
Clean Record: The student avoided the “resisting arrest” stigma that often prevents graduates from passing professional background checks.
No Courtroom Stress: The matter was resolved discreetly, allowing the student to stay focused on their studies without the shadow of a pending trial.
Why Local Expertise Matters
In Long Beach, the window between an arrest and a filing decision is narrow. Matthew Ruff’s deep familiarity with the Long Beach City Prosecutor’s policies allows him to present mitigation that often results in “DA Rejects” or “City Attorney Rejects.”
For any student or parent dealing with a recent arrest, the lesson is clear: don’t wait for the court date. If you or a loved one are facing charges, you can reach out to the Law Office of Matthew Ruff to discuss a pre-filing strategy.
Matthew Ruff is a Long Beach DUI Attorney and Criminal Defense Lawyer with over 30 years experience in Torrance, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Huntington Beach and throughout Southern California.
In a significant win for driver’s rights, a recent California DMV administrative per se (APS) hearing resulted in an “Order of Set Aside or Reinstatement” in favor of our client, Matthew. This means the proposed driver’s license suspension has been reversed, and no record of the suspension will appear on his driving record. See a redacted copy of the official order of reinstatement below.
Official Order of Reinstatement of License
The Legal Challenge: Continuances and Good Cause
The victory hinged on a precise application of California administrative law regarding hearing continuances. The law requires a party seeking a continuance to apply within 10 working days of discovering the need for it. Furthermore, any request must establish “good cause” with sufficient facts, including the nature of the conflict and steps taken to avoid it.
This case involved a DUI arrest where the client submitted to a blood test after a DUI arrest in Valencia California. The CHP took his license and Matthew demanded a hearing. Although the DMV had the arrest report which showed the client was arrested after he ran a red light, had odor of alcohol, unsteady gait, slurred speech, failed field sobriety tests and had an open container of alcohol in his vehicle, the DMV did not have his blood results and wanted to continue the hearing to obtain them. Matthew “put his foot down” and filed a motion arguing they failed to comply with California Government Code § 115.13(c)(3).
The DMV’s current request for a continuance must be denied, Matthew argued, because it is “deficient on its face”. The request omits the critical information required by subsection (c)(3): “The steps or actions taken by the requesting party to avoid the conflict”.
A review of the DMV’s submission reveals the DMV was “still awaiting chemical test results “. However, the DMV has provided no documentation, declaration, or narrative explaining what proactive measures were taken to ensure the availability of this essential evidence before the scheduled hearing date, nor what efforts were made to find an alternative solution once the conflict arose, such as the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum.
Matthew asserted: “This omission was not a minor technicality”. The purpose of § 115.13(c)(3) is to prevent administrative inefficiencies and unnecessary delays caused by a lack of due diligence by the requesting party. It ensures that continuances are a last resort, not a matter of convenience
What This Means for Matthew and his Client
An Order of Set Aside is the best possible outcome, as it completely clears the driving record of any suspension action. Matthew can now resume driving immediately without the burden of increased insurance rates or potential employment issues that often follow a suspension.
This outcome underscores the importance of experienced legal representation that understands the intricacies of DMV regulations and can leverage them effectively to protect driving privileges.
Here is a template of the motion in opposition of the continuance for anyone to use:
Legal Argument for Denial Of Continuance
I. The Request Fails to Meet the Statutory Notice Period Mandated by Government Code § 11524(b)
Government Code § 11524(b) establishes clear procedural requirements for requesting a continuance in administrative hearings governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), to which DMV license suspension hearings adhere.
The relevant text of the statute states:
“The agency shall continue a hearing upon a showing of good cause if the party or his or her representative [submits a request] not less than 10 working days before the hearing date…” (Cal. Gov. Code § 11524(b), emphasis added).
The request in question was submitted only four calendar days (or likely fewer than four working days) before the hearing. This timing demonstrably fails to meet the mandatory minimum 10 working days’ notice period prescribed by the legislature.
The California courts have consistently held that agencies must enforce these deadlines to maintain procedural order and prevent last-minute disruptions. See, e.g., Moisi v. College of Osteopathic Physicians & Surgeons (1962) 208 Cal.App.2d 35, 46 (upholding agency discretion in managing continuances and enforcing procedural rules).
II. The Request Does Not Trigger the Agency’s Obligation to Grant a Continuance
The statutory language of Cal. Gov. Code § 11524(b) provides a mandatory right to a continuance only if the request is made timely (i.e., at least 10 working days in advance) and for good cause. By failing the timing requirement, the moving party forfeits this mandatory right.
When a continuance request is untimely, granting it becomes a matter within the sole discretion of the hearing officer or the agency itself, rather than a right the petitioner can demand.
III. “Good Cause” Does Not Excuse Non-Compliance with Procedural Deadlines
While § 11524(b) allows for continuances on a showing of “good cause,” the “good cause” provision operates in conjunction with the 10-day rule, not as an exception to it.
An untimely request puts an undue burden on the agency, opposing counsel, and potential witnesses who have prepared for the scheduled date. To permit an untimely continuance would encourage procedural negligence and undermine the orderly administration of justice.
The moving party has failed to demonstrate exceptional or unforeseen circumstances that prevented them from filing the request within the proper statutory window. Lacking such extraordinary justification, their procedural failure should result in a denial.
Furthermore, The DMV’s Failure to Comply with § 115.13(c)(3)
The DMV’s current request for a continuance must be denied because it is deficient on its face. The request omits the critical information required by subsection (c)(3): “The steps or actions taken by the requesting party to avoid the conflict”.
A review of the DMV’s submission reveals the DMV “is still awaiting chemical test results “. The DMV has provided no documentation, declaration, or narrative explaining what proactive measures were taken to ensure the availability of this essential evidence before the scheduled hearing date, nor what efforts were made to find an alternative solution once the conflict arose, such as the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum.
This omission is not a minor technicality. The purpose of § 115.13(c)(3) is to prevent administrative inefficiencies and unnecessary delays caused by a lack of due diligence by the requesting party. It ensures that continuances are a last resort, not a matter of convenience.
Prejudice to the Respondent
This is a 3rd request to continue this hearing. Granting an unwarranted continuance prejudices the Respondent. The Respondent has a right to a timely hearing and prompt resolution of their driving privilege status. The Respondent has prepared for the hearing on the scheduled date, potentially arranging time off work, securing representation, or coordinating witnesses. The DMV should not be permitted to unilaterally delay proceedings without strict adherence to the rules designed to protect the Respondent’s interests and ensure administrative efficiency.
Violation of the “Neutral Arbiter” Mandate
The core holding of CDLA is that a driver has a constitutional right to a neutral and impartial hearing officer. When an HO grants themselves a continuance without a showing of “good cause,” they cease to act as a neutral arbiter and instead act as an advocate for the DMV’s interests. See California DUI Lawyers Assn. v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 517.
Advocacy Over Adjudication: By granting a continuance to accommodate their own schedule or evidentiary gaps without a legal basis, the HO is effectively prosecuting the case for the DMV rather than judging it.
Structural Error: Recent case law, such as Knudsen v. DMV (2024), has clarified that failing to separate advocacy from adjudication constitutes a structural error that denies the driver a fair hearing.
Conclusion
For these reasons, the request for a continuance must be denied. Adherence to the plain language of Government Code section 11524(b) and CCR Title 13 § 115.13(c)(3) is essential for maintaining the integrity and predictability of the administrative hearing process. The moving party has not met its burden or complied with the clear statutory prerequisites for a timely continuance request.
Do you have questions about challenging a DMV action or understanding the concept of good cause in administrative hearings? Feel free to contact Matthew for a free consultation.
Matthew Ruff is a Top Tier DMV Hearing Attorney with over 30 years experience fighting and beating drivers license suspension actions.
Drunk driving arrests rely heavily on the results of Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs) administered by law enforcement officers at the scene. To effectively challenge these crucial pieces of evidence, an attorney must understand the exact protocols the police are trained to follow. Torrance and Long Beach DUI Attorney Matthew J. Ruff has taken this a step further, obtaining certification in the proper administration of FSTs from the same organization that trains law enforcement: the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
This advanced police training and certification provides Mr. Ruff with an unparalleled advantage in defending his clients and ensuring their rights are protected from the moment of the traffic stop.
The Science Behind the Stop
Police officers use FSTs—such as the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), the Walk-and-Turn, and the One-Leg-Stand—to establish probable cause for a DUI arrest. However, these tests are highly subjective and susceptible to error if not administered perfectly according to NHTSA guidelines.
Mr. Ruff’s NHTSA certification means he has undergone the same rigorous training as the officers making the arrests. He is now even better equipped to identify and expose common mistakes made during roadside investigations, such as:
Improper Instructions: Officers failing to give clear, standardized instructions to the driver.
Environmental Factors: Challenging results based on uneven road surfaces, weather conditions, or the driver’s footwear.
Medical Conditions: Highlighting how pre-existing medical or physical conditions can affect a person’s ability to perform the tests, regardless of sobriety.
Failure to Observe Protocols: Recognizing when an officer deviates from the specific, required steps of the standardized tests and using this to discredit the police officer’s opinions.
Master of DUI Defense
Known as a “Master of DUI Defense,” Matthew Ruff has over 30 years of experience fighting and winning cases in Southern California courtrooms and at the DMV. His commitment to ongoing, specialized education, including his membership in the National College for DUI Defense and the DUI Defense Lawyer’s Association, demonstrates his dedication to providing top-tier legal representation in the area of DUI, DWI and drunk driving defense.
This new certification reinforces his aggressive approach to challenging the prosecution using science, the law, and innovative techniques to fight for the best possible outcome.
“In California, It is not illegal to drink and then drive,” Attorney Matthew Ruff emphasizes. “The government must prove that the driver was impaired or above the per se limit. My job is to ensure that the evidence used against my clients is reliable and legally obtained”.
If you or someone you know has been arrested for a DUI in the Torrance, Long Beach, or surrounding Southern California areas, having an attorney who understands the precise ins and outs of FST administration is a critical advantage.
Contact Attorney Matthew Ruff Today
Don’t let a flawed FST determine your future. Call Matthew Ruff directly for a consultation at 310-527-4100 to discuss the specifics of your case and how his expert knowledge can be used to challenge the evidence against you.
In every California DUI case the accused faces a license suspension, ignition interlock and long term SR-22 insurance requirements if their blood alcohol level was at or above .08%. In this case Matthew was able to get the DMV Judge to throw out the breathalyzer results of .11/.11 by showing his client was still in the “absorptive phase” at the time of driving and therefore his blood alcohol levels were lower than .08%. This technique is referred to as the “Rising Blood Alcohol Defense” and Attorney Matthew Ruff has over 30 years experience using it to beat DUI charges.
Attorney Ruff presented evidence at the hearing using the assistance of an expert blood alcohol toxicologist who testified using a technique known as “retrograde extrapolation”. Understanding the methodology is key to presenting this defense effectively.
Below is the Hermosa Beach Police officer’s sworn report and breath test results ⬇️
Redacted Sworn Report of Breath Test Results
Below is the decision after the hearing, reinstating the client’s license and setting aside the DUI arrest and suspension, removing it from the client’s DMV record. ⬇️
Winning Decision and Order of Set Aside
As a result of the win at the hearing, the client avoids any arrest for DUI on his driving record, NO LICENSE SUSPENSION, NO IGNITION INTERLOCK (IID), NO SR-22.
Matthew Ruff is a Top Tier Hermosa Beach DUI Attorney with over 30 years experience fighting and winning drunk driving charges in California by using innovative defenses founded in science and the law.
If you are looking for a DUI attorney in Hermosa Beach CA, give Matt a call ☎️ 310-686-1533
The case originated after the client was found allegedly heavily intoxicated and was arrested and booked into the local jail. Upon release, the client received a citation with a Court date in the LAX Court, see below
Citation for Drunk in Public in Santa Monica
Matthew spoke to the prosecution and the Judge handling the case and was able to negotiate a dismissal of the public intoxication charges (647f) and sealing of the client’s arrest so that the incident would not jeopardize his ability to get future employment. The client was elated and wrote the review below.
Actual Client Review of Matthew Ruff
Matthew Ruff is a Top Tier Criminal Defense Attorney with over 30 years experience.
