The Strategy of Success: Why Matthew Ruff Wins DUI Cases

Posted on April 17, 2026 by thetorranceattorney
Matthew J. Ruff, DUI Attorney

When facing a DUI charge in California, many people assume that “being a good person” or having a clean record will be enough to earn a break from the prosecution. However, the reality of the courtroom is far more complex.

The secret to Top Tier DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff’s decades of successful case results isn’t just his deep understanding of the law—it’s his mastery of the psychological “tug-of-war” that happens between the defense and the prosecution. Here is why Matthew’s approach of combining aggressive litigation with strategic mitigation consistently delivers superior results for his clients.

Moving the Prosecutor from “Judgment” to “Risk Management”

A prosecutor’s primary goal is to secure a conviction. When a defense attorney presents mitigation alone, the prosecutor stays in a position of power. They view the case as a “guaranteed win” and see no reason to offer a significant reduction.

Matthew Ruff changes the game by introducing Legal Risk. By filing targeted defense motions—such as PC 1538.5 Motions to Suppress—Matthew forces the prosecutor to face a hard truth: they might lose the case entirely.

• The Psychological Shift: When Matthew challenges the lawfulness of a traffic stop or the accuracy of a breath machine, he moves the prosecutor from a “mindset of judgment” to a “mindset of risk management.”

• The Result: To avoid the punch to the ego that comes from a Not Guilty Verdict or 45 minute acquittal by a jury, prosecutors often become much more willing to dismiss the DUI charges in the “interest of justice” or settle for a public intoxication, speeding ticket or a reduced charge, like a “Wet Reckless.”

Turning the “Sunk Cost” into a Defense Advantage

Prosecutors are often overwhelmed with massive caseloads. Torrance DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff understands that time is their most precious resource.

While simple mitigation takes seconds to read, litigation creates work. When Matthew subjects a case to extensive motions, forensic blood alcohol toxicology challenges, and evidentiary hearings, he makes that specific DUI “expensive” for the City Prosecutor or District Attorney’s office to prosecute.

The “Matthew Ruff” Difference: By making the prosecution work for every inch of ground, Matthew often finds that prosecutors prefer to offer a favorable deal rather than spend hours prepping officers and researching complex Title 17 regulations.

Challenging “Confirmation Bias” with Forensic Expertise

Most prosecutors look at a police report and immediately assume the defendant is guilty. They see “unsteady gait” or “slurred speech”, “weaving within the lane” and stop looking for other explanations. In many instances, there may be individual physical factors or medical conditions that can result in false positives and inflated blood alcohol levels. For example, a client with acid reflux or “Gerd” may not be a good candidate for breath testing.

Matthew Ruff uses his extensive scientific training and knowledge of NHTSA driving cues and SFST administration and challenging Title 17 forensic standards in alcohol testing to shatter this bias. By highlighting “mouth alcohol” contamination or improper blood draw and chain of custody procedures, and sloppy police work, he creates cognitive dissonance. He forces the prosecutor to doubt their own evidence, making them far more open to a compromise that saves face for their office.

The Power of the “Psychological Out”

The most successful outcomes happen when a prosecutor has both a reason and a justification to reduce a charge. This is where Matthew’s dual-threat strategy excels:

1. Litigation provides the Justification: “I’m reducing this because the defense attorney found a flaw in the blood-testing protocol.”

2. Mitigation provides the Safety: “I feel okay about this reduction because the client is a hardworking professional with a lot to lose.”

Without the litigation, the prosecutor feels they are “giving a gift” for no reason. Without the mitigation, they might feel the need to fight to the bitter end. Matthew Ruff provides both.

A FIGHTER Not a “Lackey”

In the legal world, there is a distinct difference between an attorney who merely facilitates a plea and one who fights for a dismissal. Matthew Ruff is not a “plea lawyer” who operates as a rubber stamp for the District Attorney’s office.

By taking an adversarial stance, Matthew signals to the prosecution that he will not accept a “standard” deal just to clear the calendar. He is a fighter who subjects every piece of evidence to intense scrutiny. When the prosecution knows they are up against a litigator who isn’t afraid to take a case to a contested hearing, the dynamic of the negotiation changes instantly.

Over 30 Years of Proven Results

Whether it’s at the Torrance Courthouse, Inglewood Court, or a DMV Administrative Hearing, Matthew Ruff’s client reviews and reputation for aggressive litigation precedes him. He doesn’t just ask for mercy; he builds a technical and psychological environment where a reduction is the most logical path for the prosecution to take.

Whether you are facing a first time misdemeanor DUI or a felony DUI with injury in the South Bay or Los Angeles area, don’t rely on luck. Rely on a strategy that works. Torrance Criminal Defense Attorney Matthew Ruff has been fighting and winning cases for his clients for 3 decades.

Matthew Ruff 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

Disclaimer

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

South Bay DUI Victory: How “Rising BAC” Evidence Saved a Driver’s License For Hermosa Beach Client

Posted on April 17, 2026 by thetorranceattorney
Matthew J. Ruff, DUI Attorney

Winning a DUI case often requires looking far beyond the numbers on a breathalyzer printout. In a recent victory at the DMV Driver Safety Office, Hermosa Beach DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff successfully overturned a license suspension for a client despite two chemical test results showing a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .11%—well above the legal limit.

The Case: High Breath Test Results After a Traffic Incident

The case began in Hermosa Beach following a report of a minor traffic collision. When officers arrived and conducted a DUI investigation, the driver provided two breath samples, both returning a .11% BAC. Under California law, the DMV moves to automatically suspend the license of any driver with a BAC of .08% or higher at the time of driving.

Actual Police Report Showing .11 BAC Results

The Strategy: The Science of the “Absorptive Phase”

Many drivers assume that a breath test result is final. However, Matthew Ruff knows that what matters most is the BAC at the precise time of driving, not the time of the test.

In this case, the defense centered on the “Rising Blood Alcohol Defense” theory. When a person consumes alcohol, it takes time for the body to fully absorb it into the bloodstream. During this “absorptive phase,” a person’s BAC level continues to climb. If a driver is stopped shortly after drinking, they may be below the legal limit while behind the wheel, even if they test over the limit thirty or sixty minutes later at the police station.

Expert Testimony Leads to a Total Set Aside

To prove this, Matthew brought in a forensic toxicologist to analyze the timelines of consumption, the timing of the driving, and the subsequent chemical tests. Using an innovative technique called retrograde extrapolation, the expert evidence demonstrated that because the client was still absorbing alcohol at the time of the stop, their BAC was actually below .08% while they were operating the vehicle.

By meticulously presenting this scientific data, Matthew Ruff convinced the DMV hearing officer that the police had failed to establish the client was over the legal limit at the time of the actual driving.

The Result: Full License Reinstatement

The DMV issued an Order of Set Aside and Reinstatement, meaning the DUI suspension was completely vacated. The client’s driving privileges were restored in full, and the “not guilty” finding at the administrative level provided a massive advantage for the defense.

Actual Official Order Dismissing DUI Arrest

This case serves as a critical reminder: breathalyzer results are not infallible. With the right legal strategy and scientific expertise, even a “high” BAC reading can be successfully challenged.

Using the defense of retrograde extrapolation and other techniques, Torrance DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff has been defending clients wrongly accused of drunk driving and winning DWI cases for over 30 years. If you are facing a DUI suspension in Torrance, Hermosa Beach, or the South Bay, contact Attorney Matthew Ruff today to protect your rights and your license.

Disclaimer

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

Winning the “Unwinnable”: How Torrance DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff Beat a 0.30% B.A.C. Drunk Driving Case.

Posted on April 12, 2026 by thetorranceattorney
Matthew J. Ruff, DUI Attorney

This official DMV decision (posted below) highlights a massive victory for Torrance DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff, proving that even a case with a staggering 0.30% B.A.C.—nearly four times the legal limit—can be won when you have the right legal eagle in your corner.

Here is the story of how a seemingly “slam dunk” DWI case turned into a total “Set Aside” (victory) and license reinstatement for Matthew Ruff’s client.

The 0.30% Blood Result Challenge: Why Technicalities Matter

In the world of DUI defense, a blood alcohol concentration (B.A.C.) of 0.30% Blood Test Result is often considered “indefensible.” Most drivers see that number and assume their license is gone. However, the law isn’t just about the numbers; it’s about the integrity of the evidence.

In this case, the DMV’s own findings (as seen in the document) were forced to admit a fatal flaw in the government’s process.

The Winning Strategy: Attacking the Foundation

DUI Defense Attorney Matthew Ruff successfully argued that the B.A.C. results were untrustworthy. While the police claimed the driver was intoxicated, Ruff identified critical errors in how the blood sample was collected documented and handled by the CHP Officer:

• The Name Discrepancy: The respondent’s name was spelled incorrectly on Exhibit 1A. In a legal chain of custody, a name error isn’t just a “typo”—it creates a gap in proof that the blood being tested actually belonged to the person arrested.

• The Kit Number Mystery: The defense proved that the DMV was unable to verify the kit number from the evidence. Without a verified kit number, there is no way to guarantee the sample wasn’t tampered with or switched.

• The “Fatal Omission”: The DMV hearing officer noted that the arresting officer failed to provide the “ID of sample information” on the required CHP 202 form. This omission meant the DMV could not cross-reference the blood results with the specific sample taken at the scene.

“Although the results are sworn, I cannot rely on the results due to the omission of the ID of sample information… the action must be set aside.” — Official DMV Decision

Official Decision, Matthew Ruff Wins .30 BAC Case

The Result: DUI License Suspension Action Dismissed

Because of these “technical” failures and mishandling of the blood sample, the DMV Judge was forced to reach a surprising conclusion in Section VI of the official certified decision (see above): “The preponderance of evidence did NOT support that the respondent was driving with a B.A.C. of 0.08\% or above.”.

Key Takeaways from the Win:

1. Never Plead Guilty Without an Investigation: Even a “high blow” or astronomically high blood test results can be defeated if the police paperwork is sloppy.

2. Chain of Custody is King: If the lab cannot prove that your blood stayed in that kit, the results are legally worthless.

3. The Right Representation: Attorney Matthew Ruff’s ability to spot sloppy police work and evidence discrepancies saved his client’s driving privilege and preserved their record.

Need a Fighter in Your Corner?

This case serves as a powerful reminder: the government has to follow the rules. If they don’t, you shouldn’t have to pay the price. If you’re facing a DUI with high B.A.C. levels, don’t give up—look for the flaws the DMV hopes you won’t see.

Torrance DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff is a Top Tier defense lawyer with over 30 years experience fighting and winning high stakes driving under the influence cases throughout Los Angeles County.

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

Victory at the Plate: Overcoming a DUI Case at Dodger Stadium

Posted on April 4, 2026 by thetorranceattorney
Matthew J. Ruff, DUI Attorney

We are thrilled to announce another significant victory for Torrance DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff and one of his clients, proving once again that even when the odds seem stacked against you, a meticulous legal defense can change everything.  

The Incident: A High-Stakes Crash

This case began with a dramatic scene at one of Los Angeles’ most iconic landmarks: Dodger Stadium. Our client was involved in a collision at the stadium on December 28, 2025. According to police reports, the vehicle—a 2016 Tesla Model X—was found blocking the road after the incident.  

When officers arrived at the scene, they reported several “objective symptoms” of intoxication, including:

• Red and watery eyes  

• Slurred speech  

• An odor of alcohol  

• Poor coordination and an unsteady gait  

A subsequent blood test revealed a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) of 0.101%, which is well above the legal limit of 0.08%.  

The Defense: Finding the Fatal Flaw

While the evidence may have appeared overwhelming on the surface, Top Tier DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff conducted a deep dive into the official documentation. He discovered “major procedural defects” that ultimately derailed the DMV’s case.  

The most glaring error was a staggering discrepancy in the dates. The primary sworn document used by the DMV—the DS367 Officer’s Statement—was signed and executed by the officer on December 25, 2025. However, the actual arrest and collision did not occur until three days later, on December 28, 2025.  

Attorney Ruff successfully argued that it is legally impossible for an officer to swear to the truth of facts that had not yet occurred at the time of signing. This failure to satisfy the legal requirements for a sworn report, combined with a blank narrative section on the officer’s statement, made the primary evidence inadmissible.  

The Result: A Total Set Aside and License Reinstatement

On March 25, 2026, the Department of Motor Vehicles issued its decision, agreeing with Matthew’s legal argument. Due to the unreliable and insufficient evidence provided by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), the DMV set aside the suspension of the client’s driving privilege.  

DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff Wins Case

This case serves as a powerful reminder: police reports are not always accurate, and procedural errors can be the key to protecting your rights. If you find yourself in a similar situation, you need a defense attorney that looks beyond the surface to find the truth.  Matthew Ruff, known in the community as “the master of DUI defense”, has over 30 years experience fighting and winning cases for his clients facing DWI and related alcohol charges.

Disclaimer: Each case is unique, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

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

45 Minutes to Justice: Reaffirming the Power of a Strong DUI Defense

Posted on April 3, 2026 by thetorranceattorney
Matthew J. Ruff, Torrance DUI Attorney

When you face the power of the State in a courtroom, the stakes couldn’t be higher. A DUI charge is more than just a legal hurdle; it’s a threat to your reputation, your career, and your freedom. Today, we’re looking back at a past jury trial defended by Torrance DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff. The case of The People of the State of California vs. Diaz (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 7SC02***) a case, presided over by the Honorable Judge Hayden Zacky of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, that serves as a powerful reminder of why a meticulous defense is your most important asset.

The Charges: A Two-Pronged Attack

Matthew’s client stood trial for two separate misdemeanor counts stemming from an incident in Los Angeles County :

1. Count 1: Vehicle Code Section 23152(a) – Driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage.

2. Count 2: Vehicle Code Section 23152(b) – Driving with a .08% or higher blood alcohol content (BAC).

In California, prosecutors almost always file both charges. One focuses on impairment (how you were driving and performing on tests), while the other is a “per se” charge based strictly on the chemistry of your blood or breath. To win, the defense must dismantle both theories of the crime.

The Trial: 45 Minutes to Justice

Trial work is often about the “long game”—many months of motions, evidence discovery, and strategy—culminating in a few high-pressure hours in front of a jury.

The Los Angeles jury trial lasted 5 days. However, after Defense Attorney Matthew Ruff rested and both sides delivered their closing arguments, the case was handed to the jury. The timeline of their deliberation speaks volumes about the clarity and strength of the defense presented:

• 2:50 P.M.: The jury retires to the jury room to commence deliberations.

• 3:35 P.M.: The jury informs the court they have reached a verdict.

In just 45 minutes, the jury reviewed the evidence, discussed the facts, and reached a unanimous conclusion.

The Result: NOT GUILTY on All Counts

At 3:40 P.M., the foreperson from Juror Seat #9 delivered the words every defendant hopes to hear:

“We, the jury… find the defendant, NOT GUILTY of the crime of driving under the influence… and NOT GUILTY of the crime of driving with a .08% or higher blood alcohol content.”

Disposition: ACQUITTED BY JURY.

Why This Case Matters

This acquittal wasn’t just a “lucky break.” It was the result of a defense strategy that likely challenged the reliability of the chemical testing and the subjective nature of the “impairment” observations made by the arresting officers.

When a jury returns a verdict this quickly, it often means the prosecution’s case was systematically dismantled to the point where “reasonable doubt” became an absolute certainty.

Facing DUI Charges? Don’t Go It Alone.

This case proves that a DUI charge is not a conviction. With the right legal representation, even “tough” cases involving chemical evidence can be won. Top Tier Torrance DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff has spent over 30 years ensuring that “Not Guilty” isn’t just a possibility—it’s the goal.

If you or a loved one are facing similar charges, remember that the burden of proof is on the State, and a dedicated defense can level the playing field.

Contact Matthew Ruff, DUI Attorney today for a consultation.

Disclaimer

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

Case Result of the Week: Second Offense DUI Charges Dismissed in Hermosa Beach, Torrance Court

Posted on March 29, 2026 by thetorranceattorney

This week, we are highlighting a significant legal victory achieved by Torrance DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff for a client facing a second-offense DWI charge in Hermosa Beach. Through meticulous defense and a focus on procedural compliance, the potential for a long-term license suspension and a second DUI conviction was successfully averted.

Matthew J. Ruff, Top Tier DUI Attorney

The Incident and Charges

The case began on July 26, 2025, when the client was stopped at a DUI checkpoint in the 500 block of Pier Avenue in Hermosa Beach. Following the stop, the client was arrested and charged with:  

• California Vehicle Code 23152(a): Driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage.  

• California Vehicle Code 23152(b): Driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08 percent or higher.  

Actual Hermosa Beach Charging Document

Further complicating the matter, the prosecution filed an amendment to the complaint in the Torrance Court, alleging a prior DUI conviction within the last ten years. Specifically, records indicated a previous DUI related prior violation on March 24, 2019, which resulted in a conviction later that year.  

Critical Evidence and Testing

During the initial DWI checkpoint investigation, law enforcement noted several objective symptoms, including watery eyes and horizontal nystagmus. Preliminary Alcohol Screening (PAS) and subsequent breath tests at the police station yielded the following results:  

• PAS Test 1: 0.123% BAC.  

• Official Breath Samples: Two consecutive samples both showed a breath alcohol concentration of 0.11%.  

The Defense Outcome

Despite the high BAC readings and the presence of a prior conviction, Hermosa Beach DUI Lawyer Matthew Ruff’s defense strategy led to a remarkably favorable outcome for the client:

• DUI Charges Dismissed: The original 23152(a) and 23152(b) charges were dismissed in court.

• Charges Reduced: The matter was successfully reduced to a “wet reckless” charge.

• DMV Victory: The DMV administrative suspension was rescinded, and the client’s driving privileges were fully reinstated.

This case demonstrates the importance of experienced Hermosa Beach DUI Attorney representation in navigating the complexities of both the court system and DMV administrative hearings, especially when facing the heightened penalties of a second DUI offense.

Matthew Ruff is a Top Tier DUI Defense Lawyer in Torrance California with over 30 years experience.

Disclaimer

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

Overcoming the Weight of 14 Prior Felonies: A Landmark Result for the Defense in Torrance Court

Posted on March 27, 2026 by thetorranceattorney

In the world of criminal defense, some cases are viewed by the prosecution as “open and shut” prison sentences. This is especially true when a defendant’s record reaches a certain threshold. Recently, Top Tier Torrance Defense Attorney Matthew Ruff secured a remarkable result for a client whose past could have easily defined his future, proving that even a history of 14 prior felony convictions does not preclude a path to rehabilitation. Matthew was hired by the family of the defendant after previous attempts to negotiate a reduction of sentence by his public defender failed and the DA was insisting on a prison term of 3-4 years.

Matthew J. Ruff, Criminal Defense Attorney

The Upphill Battle: 14 Priors and a 4-Year Prison Demand

The client faced new felony charges in Torrance Court for receiving a stolen vehicle (PC 496d) and grand theft (PC 487(a)). However, the most daunting aspect of the case was his extensive criminal history. With at least 14 prior felony convictions on his record, the client was the definition of a “repeat offender” in the eyes of the District Attorney.

Under California Penal Code Section 1203(e)(4), a defendant with two or more prior felony convictions is presumptively ineligible for probation. With 14 such priors, the prosecution’s stance was unwavering: they demanded a four-year term in state prison, arguing that the client’s long history of felony conduct proved he was unfit for community supervision.

The Strategy: Using Childhood Trauma to Break the Cycle

When Matthew Ruff took over the defense, he recognized that 14 convictions were not just a list of crimes—they were a roadmap of a life marked by untreated trauma and systemic failure. To save the client from another multi-year prison stint, Matthew utilized California Penal Code § 1170(b)(6), (see attached mitigation brief below).

This law requires courts to prioritize the lower term of a sentence or consider probation if the defendant has experienced significant childhood trauma. Matthew presented a compelling narrative to the court:

• Early Systemic Failure: The defense documented how the client was cycled through the Monterey County child-welfare system, suffering repeated attachment disruptions and being returned to dangerous environments as a young child.

• The “Why” Behind the Record: Matthew argued that the 14 prior felonies were a direct symptom of this early trauma and a subsequent struggle with addiction, rather than a predisposition toward violence.

• A New Approach: Instead of further institutionalization, which had clearly failed to break the cycle in the past, the defense proposed a structured, family-supported reentry plan in San Pedro.

Penal Code 1170(b)(6) Mitigation Brief

The Result: Probation Against All Odds

The argument was a success. By shifting the focus from the sheer number of prior convictions to the underlying causes of the behavior, Torrance Defense Attorney Matthew Ruff humanized a client that the system had ready to write off.

Despite the 14 prior felony convictions and a “presumptive prison” status, the court was convinced that justice would be better served through rehabilitation. The judge rejected the DA’s three to four-year prison demand and granted the client probation and immediate release from jail.

Experience That Changes the Narrative

Securing probation for a client with 14 prior felonies is an extraordinary outcome that requires a deep understanding of California’s evolving sentencing laws. It serves as a testament to the fact that with the right advocacy, the law can be used to provide a second chance—even when the prosecution says there are none left.

If you are facing a high-stakes case where your past is being used against you, contact the Law Offices of Matthew Ruff to ensure your story is heard and your rights are protected.

Matthew Ruff is a Torrance Criminal Defense Attorney and DUI Lawyer in Torrance with over 30 years experience.

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

Arrested in Santa Monica? Why “Early Intervention” is the Secret to Dropping Public Intoxication Charges

Posted on March 21, 2026 by thetorranceattorney
Matthew J. Ruff, DUI Attorney

If you’re holding a yellow piece of paper from the Santa Monica Police Department with “647(f) PC” scribbled under the citation details, your stomach is likely in knots. Whether the incident happened near the Fairmont Miramar, along Ocean Avenue, or after a night out at the Pier, a public intoxication charge is more than just an embarrassing story—it’s a criminal misdemeanor that can follow you on every background check for the rest of your life.

Public Intoxication Citation (PC647f)

However, as veteran Torrance DUI Attorney and Santa Monica defense attorney Matthew Ruff has proven time and again, a citation is not a conviction. In fact, some of the biggest victories happen before you ever step foot inside a courtroom.

Most people wait until their court date to deal with their charges. By then, the City Prosecutor has already reviewed the police report, filed formal charges, and set the wheels of the justice system in motion.

Matthew Ruff’s approach is different. He focuses on early intervention.

By stepping in immediately after an arrest, Mr. Ruff can engage with prosecutors during the “pre-filing” stage. This is a critical window where the government decides whether or not to actually move forward with a case. When a skilled attorney presents a “mitigation package” or highlights evidentiary gaps early, they can often convince the prosecutor to reject the case entirely.

How Matthew Ruff Gets Charges Dropped

In Santa Monica, where tourism is high and the police are vigilant, many 647(f) PC arrests are made based on subjective observations: “bloodshot eyes,” “slurred speech,” or a “strong odor of alcohol.”

Matthew Ruff challenges these assertions by focusing on three key areas:

1. The “Unable to Care for Safety” Standard: Under California law, being drunk in public isn’t a crime on its own. The prosecution must prove you were so intoxicated that you could no longer care for your own safety or the safety of others. Mr. Ruff often argues that while a client may have been “buzzed,” they did not meet this high legal threshold.

2. The Human Element: For many, an arrest is a one-time mistake. Mr. Ruff highlights his clients’ professional backgrounds—whether they are nurses, engineers, or students—to show that a criminal record would be a disproportionate punishment.

3. Constitutional Challenges: If the initial stop by Santa Monica PD was unlawful, any evidence gathered afterward is “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Mr. Ruff has successfully filed motions to suppress evidence, leading to total dismissals.

A Recent Success Story

In a notable Santa Monica case, a client was arrested after a disturbance at a local hotel. Rather than waiting for the court date, Matthew Ruff contacted the prosecutor immediately. By providing context that the police report missed and negotiating directly with the City Attorney, he secured a complete dismissal of all charges. The client never had to worry about a permanent mark on their record or the stress of a trial.

Don’t Wait for Your Court Date

The date written on your citation is a deadline, but it shouldn’t be the day you start your defense.

If you want the best chance at a “dismissed” case, the work needs to start now. Early intervention turns a potentially life-altering mistake into a closed chapter.

Matthew Ruff is a Santa Monica DUI Attorney who has 30 years experience fighting for and winning alcohol related cases such as public intoxication and drunk driving.

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

Can a DUI Charge Be Set Aside If the Officer Fails to Collect Your Blood Sample After Taking a Breath Test?

Posted on March 16, 2026 by thetorranceattorney
Matthew J. Ruff, DUI Attorney

When you’re pulled over on suspicion of a DUI in California, the law creates a specific “contract” between you and the state known as Implied Consent. But what happens when the police fail to uphold their end of that deal? In a recent case out of Long Beach California, DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff argued for a license suspension to be set aside because the arresting officer ignored a mandatory statutory duty: the collection and retention of a chemical sample upon request.

The Core of the Argument: Mandatory vs. Discretionary

In this case, the driver consented to a breath test. However, California Vehicle Code § 23614 requires that if a driver chooses a breath test, they must be advised that since the machine doesn’t save a breath sample, they have the right to provide a blood or urine sample to be retained for future independent testing. This is often referred to as a “Trombetta Admonition”.

The defense’s argument centered on several critical points:

• The Advisement: The California Highway Patrol Officer advised the driver of the right to have a blood or urine sample collected and retained for future testing.

• The Request: The driver clearly asserted the right and requested that a sample be retained.  

• The Failure: Despite this clear request, the officer failed to take the necessary steps to collect and retain that sample.  

Attorney Ruff argued that the word “shall” in the Vehicle Code makes this duty mandatory. By failing to facilitate the collection, the CHP officer breached the statutory mandate and violated the driver’s due process rights.  

Why Retention Matters: Title 17 and Due Process

Why is a missing blood sample such a big deal? It comes down to scientific integrity and due process.

• Title 17 Violations: California Code of Regulations (Title 17) requires that blood or urine samples be retained for one year so the defense can conduct its own analysis. By failing to collect the sample, the officer effectively bypassed these retention requirements.  

• The “Unitary Investigation” Theory: Defense Attorney Matthew Ruff argued that a DUI investigation is a “unitary event”. If an officer fails to follow the law regarding the alternative sample, the “regularity” of the entire testing process is compromised.  

• Constitutional Rights: Citing Brown v. Municipal Court (1978) 86 Cal App 3d 357, Matthew argued that denying an accused person the chance to obtain their own evidence prevents them from obtaining evidence necessary for their defense, which is a denial of due process under California law and a violation of their Trombetta rights.

The Remedy: Suppressing the Evidence

The ultimate goal of this legal challenge was the suppression of the chemical breath test results. When a driver is denied the opportunity to obtain their own sample, California courts have held that suppression of the results is the appropriate remedy to afford the individual a fair trial.  

Without the breath test evidence, there is often insufficient evidence to support a finding that the person drove with a BAC of 0.08% or more. Matthew Ruff asserted, “the DMV cannot sustain a suspension when the evidence supporting it was obtained in violation of fundamental due process rights”.

Does your case involve a similar violation of your rights? Can the filing of a Trombetta Motion result in DUI charges being dismissed? For answers and information regarding these and other questions contact Matthew for a consultation.

Torrance DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff has over 30 years experience fighting charges where the police have violated the rights of the accused.

Disclaimer

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

Brief Opposing DMV Continuance To Obtain Missing Blood Test Results

Posted on March 14, 2026 by thetorranceattorney
Matthew J. Ruff, DUI Attorney

Lately the California DMV has been requesting to reschedule DMV hearings because they are missing crucial information and evidence necessary to suspend a person’s license.

As a DUI Attorney in Torrance CA for over 30 years I have seen how the California DMV can be very oppressive and violative of a person’s Constitutional Rights, this latest effort to continue and postpone hearings indefinitely until they can obtain blood test results, DS367 or other reports is just another example of this Government abuse.

In response, I have been opposing these requests on the grounds they violate the Government Code, Vehicle Code and Due Process.

Attached is a legal brief in opposition:

Legal Argument in Opposition of Continuance (Reschedule)

Failure to Meet DMV Guidelines

The following are the DMV Regulations created to govern APS Hearings, a copy of the entire regulations are attached under separate cover (Note, Counsel was provided these regulations by the DMV):

Title 13, Division 1, Chapter 1

Article 2.4. Driver Safety § 115.13.

Motion for a Continuance of Hearing.

(a) Any motion for a continuance shall be made pursuant to Government Code section 11524.

(b) No motion for a continuance shall be granted absent a showing of good cause.

(c) Any motion for a continuance shall contain sufficient facts and information to establish good cause including the following:

(1) The nature of the conflict, event, or occurrence which establishes the good cause for the continuance;

(2) The date the conflict, event, or occurrence arose or was discovered; and

(3) The steps or actions taken by the requesting party to avoid the conflict.

(d) Any motion for a continuance shall be made and filed within 10 business days following the time the party discovered or reasonably should have discovered the conflict, event, or occurrence.

(1) Any motion for a continuance made more than 10 business days following the time the party discovered or reasonably should have discovered the conflict shall not be granted.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (d)(1), the hearing officer may still grant a motion for a continuance made more than 10 business days following the time the party discovered or reasonably should have discovered the conflict if the requesting party can demonstrate facts that support all the following:

(A) The requesting party could not reasonably have requested the continuance any sooner.

(B) The requesting party is not at fault for the conflict necessitating the

continuance.

(C) The requesting party has made reasonable, diligent efforts to avoid the conflict.

(e) Failure to include the information required by this section shall result in the denial of the request for a continuance.

(f) Any request for judicial review of a denial of a continuance shall comply with Government Code section 11524(c).

Note: Authority cited: Section 1651, Vehicle Code. Reference: Section 11524, Government Code.

The continuance request fails to meet the requirements set forth in the DMV policy requirements of § 115.13

Failure to Comply with Notice Period: A motion for a continuance must be made within 10 business days of the moving party discovering the conflict. The regulations state that a motion made after this period “shall not be granted” unless specific extenuating circumstances are met under subsection (d)(2).

Lack of Good Cause Information: Any motion for a continuance “shall contain sufficient facts and information to establish good cause”. The DMV offered no facts regarding the nature of the conflict or steps taken to avoid it. Failure to include the required information under this section “shall result in the denial of the request for a continuance”.

No Showing of Due Diligence: The regulation requires the moving party to provide information regarding the “steps or actions taken… to avoid the conflict”. A party seeking a continuance after the 10-day period must show they made a “good faith effort, to prevent the condition or event”. A lack of this information demonstrates a failure to exercise the required diligence.

Due Process and Neutrality: Granting a continuance without a legal basis, especially when the moving party fails to follow established procedures, may be argued to compromise the “meaningful opportunity to present their case” and the appearance of a neutral hearing officer. Recent case law in California, such as Knudsen v. DMV (2024), has found that failing to maintain separation between advocacy and adjudication can be a structural error.

ADDITIONAL GROUNDS

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 one calendar day before the hearing. This timing demonstrably fails to meet the mandatory minimum 10 working days’ notice period prescribed by law.

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 Clearly Violates The Law

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 Government Code § 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 the blood 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.

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.

Continuance Without Good Cause Violates Constitutional Procedural Due Process

The right to a driver’s license is a “vested fundamental right,” and its suspension requires a fair and timely hearing.

Multiple delays without justification infringe upon constitutional protections: 

Fourteenth Amendment (U.S. Constitution) Requires a “meaningful opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time“. An unauthorized continuance that keeps a driver in a state of legal uncertainty can be challenged as a denial of this right.

Unacceptable Risk of Bias: Recent appellate decisions, including Knudsen v. DMV (2024), affirm that when a DMV Hearing Officer acts as both advocate and adjudicator—particularly by granting themselves continuances to bolster the Department’s evidence—it creates an “unacceptable risk of bias”.

Structural Error: Continuing a hearing without good cause to allow the Department to “fix” its case (e.g., “waiting for additional evidence”) violates the core requirement of a neutral adjudicator.

3. Prejudice to the Respondent

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. Undue financial burden due to additional attorney fees.

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.

Respectfully submitted,

Matthew Ruff

Attorney for LICENSEE

Feel free to use, share and expand upon this brief and the legal arguments. In many cases Matthew has won dmv hearings by arguing against a dmv continuance and this brief is integral in achieving those results.

Matthew Ruff is a Torrance DUI Attorney with over 30 years experience.

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