
In the world of California DMV Administrative Per Se (APS) DUI hearings, the Department often relies on the “presumption of regularity”—the idea that if a government lab ran a test, they must have done it correctly. However, a recent case handled by attorney Matthew Ruff for one client proves that when the paperwork is flawed, that presumption disappears.
This case serves as a masterclass in using Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations and the Evidence Code to protect a driver’s license from unreliable evidence.
1. The “Anonymous” Blood Sample
The most glaring issue in the DMV’s case was the LASD Laboratory Examination Report itself. Despite being used to suspend the client’s license, the report failed to identify him by name.
• Missing Identity: The lab results did not list his actual name anywhere in the conclusions.
• The Disclaimer: The laboratory explicitly disclaimed responsibility for the accuracy of subject names, stating it was “not responsible” for the information provided by the arresting agency.
• Legal Argument: Matthew Ruff argued that without a name, the DMV could not “bridge the gap” between the lab sample and the respondent, violating Title 17 § 1219.1, which requires maintaining the identity of the sample.
2. The 179-Day “Black Hole”
Even if the name had been present, the “chain of custody”—the record of who handled the blood and where it was stored—was severely broken.
• The Timeline: The blood was drawn on July 31, 2025, but it wasn’t analyzed until January 26, 2026.
• Missing Logs: For nearly six months, the sample sat in a CHP South Los Angeles evidence locker.
• The Violation: There were no logs provided to show how the sample was stored or secured during this half-year delay. Mr. Ruff argued this constituted a foundational failure, as Title 17 requires records of “receipt, storage, and disposition”.
3. Mismatched Evidence Numbers
Precision is everything in legal evidence. In this case, the numbers simply didn’t add up.
• The Officer’s Record: Officer Ledezma booked the sample as #250731LA2037-1.
• The Lab’s Record: The Lab Report referenced File Number 530-250731LA2037, missing the crucial “-1” suffix.
• The Impact: This discrepancy showed an “irregularity” in tracking the sample, which legally shifts the burden back to the DMV to prove the sample’s identity without relying on any shortcuts.
The Result: Upholding Trustworthiness
Matthew Ruff strenuously argued that the Los Angeles Sheriff Department Lab Report of blood results failed the “Official Records” exception to the hearsay rule (Evidence Code § 1280). Because the lab admitted it lacked personal knowledge of whose blood was tested and disclaimed the accuracy of its own reports, the evidence lacked the “trustworthiness” required by law.
This case reminds us that a DMV hearing isn’t just a formality—it is a legal battle where technical details like a missing suffix or a long delay can be the difference between keeping or losing your driving privilege.
Matthew Ruff is a “Top Tier” DUI Attorney with over 30 years experience in the area of drunk driving defense and is often referred to as the “Master of DUI Defense” by his peers and colleagues.
Matthew Ruff is a DUI Lawyer in Torrance, with offices throughout Southern California and Los Angeles County.
Office Locations
Matthew J Ruff, Long Beach DUI Attorney
444 W. Ocean Blvd.
Long Beach CA 90802
(562) 473-5390
Matthew J Ruff, DUI Attorney
18411 Crenshaw Blvd.
Torrance CA 90504
(310) 527-4100
Matthew J Ruff, San Pedro DUI Attorney
222 W. 6th St.
San Pedro CA 90731
(310) 514-0877
Matthew J. Ruff, DUI Attorney
333 S. Grand Avenue
Los Angeles CA 90012
(877) 213-4453
Matthew J. Ruff, Huntington Beach DUI Attorney
17011 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach CA 92647
(877) 212-2090
Matthew Ruff, DUI Defense Lawyer -Santa Monica Office
100 Wilshire Blvd.
Santa Monica CA 90401
(877) 213-4453










