Matthew Ruff Defeats DUI “Refusal” Suspension by Challenging Unsanitary Hospital Conditions

Posted on April 28, 2026 by thetorranceattorney
Matthew J. Ruff, DUI Attorney

We are proud to announce a total victory for our client in a high-stakes DMV Administrative Hearing. Torrance DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff successfully secured an Order of Set Aside and Reinstatement, completely vacating a one-year “refusal” license suspension.

The “Sanitary Defense”: When “Refusing” is Actually Prudence

The core of this victory relied on a sophisticated legal challenge to the conditions of the blood draw. While the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (West Hollywood) labeled our client’s actions as a “refusal,” Matthew Ruff argued that the hesitation was a legally protected objection to unsanitary conditions.

Actual Police Report of Case Win by Matthew

Using the landmark California case Ross v. DMV, the defense proved that:

• Safety is Not a Refusal: A driver’s request for a clean, professional, and sanitary environment for a blood draw is a “reasonable and prudent” condition, not a rejection of the law.

• The Right to Assurances: Pursuant to the Ross case, if a driver expresses bona fide concerns about the safety of a medical procedure, the officer has a duty to provide assurances or offer the alternative breath test.

• Silence is Not Consent: Instead of addressing hygiene concerns or offering a breath test, the deputy read Miranda rights and then labeled the driver’s subsequent silence as a refusal—a move Master of DUI Defense, Matthew Ruff successfully argued was “officer-induced confusion.”

Dismantling the Officer’s Narrative

The DMV Hearing Officer was presented with evidence that the arresting deputies failed to meet their statutory obligations under Vehicle Code § 23612:

1. Blank Reports: The officer failed to provide any factual basis for why a breath test was “unavailable,” leaving critical sections of the DS-367 sworn statement blank.

2. Unsubstantiated Conclusions: The claim that the driver “recanted consent” was exposed as a mere legal conclusion lacking any supporting facts or specific dialogue.

The Result: License Saved & Record Cleared

As of April 28, 2026, the DMV issued an official Order of Set Aside. The mandatory one-year “hard” suspension has been deleted. Our client is now eligible for a no-fee duplicate license and can return to the road with their driving record intact.

Verified Order of Reinstatement (Refusal Set Aside)

Why This Matters

A “Refusal” allegation is the most dangerous charge in a DMV hearing because there is no restricted license available. You either win or you lose your privilege to drive for a full year. This case proves that with a deep understanding of California Case Law and a refusal to accept the “officer’s version” of events, these cases are winnable.

Arrested For DUI? Call ☎️ 310-686-1533 

 Matt 310-686-1533

Facing a DMV hearing in Los Angeles or West Hollywood? Contact Top Tier DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff, the attorney who knows how to turn “Refusals” into “Set Asides.”

Posted in criminal, DMV, DUI, Legal Resources, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Victory in Torrance: How Matthew Ruff Secured a DUI Dismissal for an Underage Driver

Posted on April 25, 2026 by thetorranceattorney
Matthew J. Ruff, DUI Attorney

Facing a DUI charge is a daunting experience for anyone, but for a driver under 21, the stakes are exceptionally high. In California, “Zero Tolerance” laws mean that even a trace of alcohol can trigger a year-long license suspension and a permanent criminal record. However, as one recent case in the Torrance Courthouse proves, the right legal strategy and the right Torrance DUI Lawyer can turn a hopeless situation into a complete victory.

In this case, a young driver was arrested in Palos Verdes Estates and charged with a misdemeanor DUI under Vehicle Code 23152(a). Despite the police reports and chemical test evidence, top-tier Palos Verdes DUI attorney Matthew Ruff was able to navigate the complex legal system to secure a total dismissal of the charges.

The Arrest: A Long Night in Palos Verdes Estates

The incident began in the early morning hours of July 18, 2024. According to the Under Age 21 Officer’s Statement (DS 367M), the driver was contacted by Palos Verdes Estates Police at 4:21 AM. The officer noted classic “objective symptoms” of intoxication:

• Bloodshot/watery eyes

• Odor of alcoholic beverage

• Performance on Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs)

The Preliminary Alcohol Screening (PAS) tests, often used on the scene for underage drivers, showed breath results of .073% and .071%—dangerously close to the adult legal limit and far above the .01% “Zero Tolerance” threshold for minors. Later, at the station, official chemical breath tests recorded results of .05% and .06%.

Actual Redacted DUI Police Report

The Legal Strategy: Challenging the Evidence

When Top DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff took the case, he didn’t just look at the numbers; he looked at the science and the procedure. California DUI cases are often built on a “presumption of regularity,” but Mr. Ruff is known for dismantling that presumption by focusing on three key areas:

1. Title 17 Compliance: California’s Title 17 regulations dictate exactly how breath and blood tests must be administered. Any deviation—such as failing to observe the driver for a full 15 minutes before the test—can render the results inadmissible.

2. Challenging the “Objective Symptoms”: Symptoms like watery eyes or an odor of alcohol are subjective. Mr. Ruff often argues that these signs can be caused by allergies, fatigue, or non-alcoholic substances, rather than actual impairment.

3. The “Interest of Justice”: Even when evidence seems strong, California Penal Code 1385 allows a judge to dismiss a case “in the interest of justice.” This is where a skilled attorney’s reputation and negotiation skills become paramount.

The Result: DUI Charge Dismissed

The battle culminated in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Torrance Courthouse):

“Dismissed 1385 PC”

A dismissal under PC 1385 means the judge exercised their discretionary power and dismiss the misdemeanor DUI charges entirely. For this young driver, this means no criminal conviction, no “black mark” on their record that could hinder future college or job applications, and a second chance at a clean slate.

Actual Court Order Dismissing DUI Charges

Why the Choice of Attorney Matters

Underage DUI laws are designed to be punishing, leaving little room for error. This case serves as a powerful reminder that an arrest is not a conviction. By hiring an attorney with over 30 years of experience who understands the nuances of the Torrance Court and the Palos Verdes Estates Police Department, the defendant was able to move from a potential life-altering conviction to a total dismissal.

Arrested For DUI? Call ☎️ Matt 310-686-1533

If you or a loved one are facing similar charges, remember: the evidence is only as strong as your lawyer allows it to be. Torrance Underage DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff has over 30 years experience fighting and winning all manner of criminal charges throughout Southern California.

Disclaimer

Posted in criminal, DMV, DUI, Legal Resources, Torrance Judges, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Mouth Alcohol Defense: How a Tongue Piercing Saved a DUI Case

Posted on April 24, 2026 by thetorranceattorney
Matthew J. Ruff, DUI Attorney

When it comes to DUI defense, the smallest details often make the biggest difference. In a recent case defended by Torrance DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff, a client’s commitment to dental hygiene—and a poorly timed rinse—turned a likely conviction into a hung jury and a favorable resolution.

The Stop: Speeding and Signs of Trouble

The incident began when police pulled over the client for speeding. Upon approaching the window, the officer noted the “textbook” signs of intoxication:

• An odor of alcohol emitting from the vehicle.

• Slurred speech.

• Slowed responses.

The client was asked to exit the vehicle to perform Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs). According to the officer’s report, the client failed to perform the tests as instructed, leading to an immediate suspicion of impairment.

The Science: A .12% BAC and the “Mouth Alcohol” Problem

The client submitted to a breath test, which returned results of .12% and .13%—well above the legal limit of .08%. On the surface, it looked like an open-and-shut case for the prosecution. However, Matthew Ruff dug deeper into the timeline of the evening.

The “Infection Prevention” Factor

The client had recently undergone a tongue piercing. To prevent infection, his piercer had strictly advised him to rinse his mouth frequently with Listerine. Moments after being pulled over, the client—anxious about both the piercing and a beer he had consumed earlier—used the mouthwash he kept in his car to “mask” his breath.

The Defense Strategy: Contamination

Matthew Ruff successfully argued that the breathalyzer results were scientifically unreliable due to Mouth Alcohol Contamination.

Most breathalyzers operate on the assumption that the alcohol being measured is “alveolar air” (air from deep within the lungs). However, Listerine contains a high percentage of alcohol. If a subject uses mouthwash immediately before a test, the device measures the concentrated alcohol vapors in the mouth rather than what is in the bloodstream.

The Argument: The .12% reading wasn’t a reflection of the client’s blood alcohol level, but rather a measurement of the Listerine he had just swished to protect his new piercing.

The Result: From DUI to Public Intoxication

The jury was presented with the scientific possibility that the breath results were inflated by the mouthwash. After deliberations, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict, resulting in a hung jury.

Recognizing the weakness in their case following the trial, the District Attorney chose not to pursue a second DUI trial. Instead, they offered a significantly reduced charge:

• Original Charge: DUI (.08% or higher)

• Final Resolution: Public Intoxication (Non-driving related)

The Takeaway

This case highlights why “objective symptoms” aren’t always what they seem. Slurred speech can be caused by a swollen, newly-pierced tongue, and high breath test results can be caused by something as simple as hygiene.

If you’re facing a DUI charge where the numbers don’t seem to add up, you need an attorney who understands the science behind the machines. Top Tier DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff continues to prove that a meticulous defense can dismantle even the most “solid” police evidence.

Disclaimer

Posted in criminal, DMV, DUI, Legal Resources, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment