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?
Torrance DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff has over 30 years experience fighting charges where the police have violated the rights of the accused.
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).
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 onecalendar 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.
This article is being re-posted from the National College of DUI Defense
Friends and Colleagues, it’s the last Friday in February, and I wanted to make today’s submission a little extra. A little “Year of the Fire Horse” worthy, if you’re into that kind of thing. So buckle up, buckaroos – It’s Fourth Amendment Friday, and we are taking a look at the DUI Exception to the Constitution.
Unwritten, of course, but no less real, the DUI exception exists. Scalia called it out in his scathing dissent in Navarette, which I discussed before, and will address momentarily. The Fourth Amendment doesn’t contain an offense-specific exception, certainly not for DUIs, yet DUIs are routinely given softer scrutiny by courts. This distortion is classified under general public safety concerns, announced with furrowed brows by learned, wizened men and women of the law, extolling the “terrible toll” that DUIs take “on our nation’s highways.”
I once heard about a publication, when I was speaking at a seminar in Minnesota, where the statistics showed that pregnant women are more likely to get into accidents than people who use cannabis, but we don’t talk about the terrible toll of the third trimester on anyone’s highways, byways, or driveways.
I digress. Courts treat DUIs as sui generis and then deny doing so. We see it in sentencing, where the courts treat DUIs as a chance to sentence people based on things that might have happened, but did not in fact happen, (or, even if speculative conduct isn’t part of the basis for the sentence, it can certainly give rise to a long lecture about how the accused “could have killed someone,” and “aren’t we all glad this isn’t a lot worse?”). We see it in plea negotiations, where the prosecutors act personally offended that our clients are parked legally and have a BAC that barely tops a .15, just because they have a prior from 15 years ago. (“Guess someone didn’t learn their lesson, Michelle.”) (“Guess not, Vinny, let’s go to trial again.”).
And while we shouldn’t see it there, we absolutely shouldn’t see it in the Fourth Amendment application of probable cause, reasonable suspicion, and what it takes to get a warrant. The neutrality principle of constitutional thresholds shouldn’t fluctuate based on the “social sleazy” of the alleged offense. The standards are constant; just ask the Supremes.
In Delaware v. Prouse, we learned that general crime control doesn’t justify suspicionless seizures. Reid v. Georgia gives us the adage that anything which would subject a large number of innocent travelers to virtually suspicionless seizures is unconstitutional. And even if the stop is legal, Rodriguez v. US says the police can only detain you long enough to complete the designated mission; anything else is unconstitutional without further cause.
But Navarette – which wasn’t even a DUI case – opened the door wide to the sui generis stable and let the suspicionless stop stallions run free. In that case, there was an anonymous tip of erratic driving on a California highway. Officers find the car in the area where the caller said it would likely be and follow it for about five minutes. Which, in highway time, is a long time.
They observed nothing. Nary a weave, not a drift, not a hint of a thought of a possibility of an illegal or unsafe lane change.
And certainly there was no speeding. Perish the thought.
But, for the majority, that wasn’t enough to dispel the caller’s claim of erratic driving. Justice Thomas determined, apropos of nothing, that the perfect driving observed by the officers was all a ruse. Obviously, he wrote, as everyone knows, DUI drivers will just automatically adjust their driving behaviors to absolute perfection when they see the police behind them. No, no, the unsubstantiated claim of a singular instance of erratic driving, followed by perfect driving, was clearly enough for a stop to investigate DUI.
Couldn’t disagree more, Scalia seethed. We have a single reported instance of careless driving and five miles or more of good driving? How many single instances of bad, reckless, or careless driving turn out to be DUIs? He advances a statistic of .1%, which he then admits he has no basis for, but challenges the majority to say he is wrong.
Scalia called the court’s opinion a “freedom-destroying cocktail.” He warned against the DUI exception to the Fourth Amendment, criticized the Court’s willingness to take the caller’s allegations of erratic driving at face value because of the “dangerous nature” of DUIs, and noted that the gravity of the offense is not something that we consider when we evaluate Fourth Amendment questions. He accused the majority of watering down Fourth Amendment protections simply because it was a DUI:
“Drunken driving is a serious matter, but so is the loss of our freedom to come and go as we please without police interference,” he wrote. “To prevent and detect murder, we do not allow searches without probable cause or targeted Terry stops without reasonable suspicion. We should not do so for drunken driving either.”
The takeaway was clear: If danger justifies lower reliability thresholds, neutrality is gone.
The DUI exception to the Constitution shows up in every area of the Fourth Amendment. In reasonable suspicion, we see it when innocuous driving behavior is aggregated into suspicion. I cannot be the only one who has had a prosecutor try and spin speeding into a driving cue. The police will also use indications of mere alcohol ingestion, such as an odor, with nothing more, to detain for a DUI investigation, suggesting that somehow innocent activity, in a DUI, is the same as reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
In probable cause, the officers’ training and experience becomes code for, “Forget the Fourth, I do what I want.” Officers testify about field sobriety performance as if it is conclusive, a totality analysis becomes a cherry-picked curated selection of evidence that fits the government’s narrative, and any attempt to bring science into the courtroom to debunk this bunk is met with an eyeroll and a muttered, “nerd alert.”
But DUIs are just the perfect vehicle for such Fourth Amendment erosion, aren’t they? It is a politically untouchable enforcement category. No one is going to mourn or pity the poor drunken driver. Social condemnation reduces judicial scrutiny, in my opinion, on the police action, and “low sympathy” defendants invite relaxed analysis. Because DUI is one of the most commonly committed crimes in the country, courts that hear such cases have a high-volume docket, and the pressure to move the cases is equally as high. Questions posed to defense counsel like, “Don’t you have a plea?” Well, yes, Your Honor, but I would like to see the evidence as well, if I may. Loud sigh. A very stern look at me, followed by a telepathic exchange with the prosecutor:
“Can you believe this?”
“She is insisting on due process! In a DUI of all things!
“Ugh. Threaten to revoke the plea if they don’t take it in the next ten seconds.”
Forget about being DUI lawyers for a second. I know, I know, but it will only hurt for a second. What if we weren’t fighting that good fight? Imagine where this goes. First, it’s DUIs. And because the doctrine doesn’t collapse all at once, because the Fourth Amendment doesn’t crawl off into a forgotten corner of the Archives and cry itself to sleep right away, it first begins to erode in high-condemnation cases. Sex crimes, certainly. Any crimes against children. Anywhere where the “just in this case” type of reasoning could make an officer think, “Oh, look, an open door,” before kicking it in. And before you know it, just like that, we have no neutrality.
When Constitutional neutrality is compromised, then every “dangerous” offense is evaluated on a sliding scale, and the Fourth Amendment becomes offense specific. Probable cause means different things for different crimes, and protection against government power shrinks, shrivels, withers, sputters, and finally goes dark.
And so, as we bring this month to a close, my friends and colleagues, we remind ourselves that we do not concede the premise. We do not allow the “just a DUI” to become code for the “Fourth Amendment Lite (now Gluten-Free).” Neutrality is not optional; the Fourth Amendment doesn’t bend for unpopular defendants, high-volume dockets, furrow-browed statistics on the purported highway carnage, be it from beer drinkers or baby-on-boarders. It means the same thing, every time, in every case, or it means nothing at all.
So saddle up – be the inconvenient lawyer. Be the one who causes the prosecutors to roll their eyes when they see your name as “Attorney for Defendant.” Insist on that threshold. I will join you there.
Because the Fire Horse doesn’t graze quietly at the edge of the pasture – it runs straight and hard right into battle, principled, and unyielding.
Have a great weekend.
Your Friend,
Shelley Behan
Matthew Ruff is a Torrance DUI Lawyer with 30 years experience. Matthew is known as the “Master of DUI Defense” by his colleagues and peers.
Winning a DUI case in criminal court is a landmark victory, but for many in California, the administrative battle with the DMV remains an uphill climb. Even if an initial Administrative Per Se (APS) hearing resulted in a suspension, a specific legal maneuver known as a “Helmandollar Acquittal” offers a powerful second chance to reinstate your driving privileges.
As demonstrated in a case handled by top tier attorney Matthew J. Ruff, leveraging this technique can force the DMV to reverse a suspension even after the administrative process has concluded.
Beyond the APS Hearing: The Power of VC §13353.2(e)
Typically, a DMV suspension through the APS process is considered final unless it is appealed immediately. However, Vehicle Code §13353.2(e) creates a vital legal safety net. This statute mandates that the DMV must reinstate a person’s driving privilege if they are later “acquitted” of the related criminal charges in a court of law.
This maneuver allows a driver to bypass the results of a failed DMV hearing by utilizing the outcome of the criminal trial.
How the “Helmandollar Acquittal” Works
The term “Helmandollar Acquittal” refers to the precedent set in Helmandollar v. Department of Motor Vehicles, which clarified how criminal court outcomes affect DMV status. In the case managed by Mr. Ruff, the strategy followed this established legal path:
• Securing the Not Guilty Verdict: The client was acquitted after trial on the charge of violating Vehicle Code §23152(b) (driving with a BAC of .08% or higher).
• Filing the Mandatory Motion: Following the verdict, Mr. Ruff filed a formal Motion to Reinstate Driving Privileges.
• Invoking the Helmandollar Precedent: The motion argued that since the court made a finding “on the merits” favorable to the defendant, the DMV was legally required to set aside the suspension.
• Establishing Equality of Elements: Because the elements of VC §23152(b) are essentially the same as the issues decided in a DMV hearing, a “Not Guilty” verdict in court effectively overrides the DMV’s previous administrative finding.
Helmandollar Acquittal Motion
Why This Matters
The Helmandollar maneuver is essential because it ensures that the Superior Court’s findings take precedence over administrative decisions.
• Mandatory Reinstatement: The law states the DMV “must” or is “required” to reinstate the license; it is not a discretionary choice for the department once the acquittal is proven.
• Correcting the Record: It prevents a driver from being punished administratively for conduct that a court of law determined they did not commit.
• A Final Safety Net: It provides a crucial second opportunity for drivers who may have lost their initial APS hearing but were ultimately vindicated in the criminal justice system.
By successfully navigating these statutes and the Helmandollar precedent, Torrance DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff was able to have the DMV suspension set aside and his client’s driving privileges fully restored.
When facing a DUI in Los Angeles, the stakes couldn’t be higher. A conviction for driving under the influence carries mandatory fines, programs, and a permanent criminal record. However, as a recent case handled by the “Master of DUI Defense” Matthew Ruff at the Los Angeles Metropolitan Courthouse demonstrates, the right legal strategy can transform a dire situation into a manageable resolution.
In this specific matter, our client was originally charged with two serious counts under the California Vehicle Code:
• VC 23152(a): Driving under the influence of alcohol.
• VC 23152(b): Driving with a BAC of .08% or higher.
The Strategy: Challenging the Prosecution’s Narrative
The police reports indicated that the defendant was found stopped in a lane of traffic on the I-110 freeway. Officers reported a “strong odor of an alcoholic beverage” and claimed the driver performed poorly on Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs). To make matters more difficult, preliminary breath tests recorded levels of .149% and .145%—nearly double the legal limit.
Despite these daunting numbers, Matthew Ruff conducted a forensic review of the evidence. By scrutinizing the “welfare check” procedures and the timeline of the chemical testing, the defense was able to highlight significant evidentiary weaknesses.
The Outcome: Full DUI Dismissal
Through aggressive negotiation and by demonstrating the risks the prosecution faced if the case went to trial, Matthew Ruff secured a major victory for the client. As shown in the official court records:
• Count 01 (DUI) was DISMISSED.
• Count 02 (High BAC) was DISMISSED.
• The case was reduced to a single count of VC 23103 (Reckless Driving), commonly known as a “Wet Reckless.”
Court Records Showing Dismissal of DUI Charges
Why This Matters
A reduction to reckless driving is a superior outcome for several reasons. It typically involves shorter probation periods, lower fines, and avoids the more severe social and professional stigmas associated with a DUI conviction.
This case proves that even with high breath test results and freeway-side arrests, a “guilty” verdict is never a foregone conclusion. Professional intervention and a deep understanding of the Los Angeles court system are the keys to protecting your future.
“The goal is always to protect the client’s record. By getting the DUI counts dismissed, we ensured this individual could move forward without the weight of a criminal DUI conviction.” — Matthew Ruff, Lead Attorney
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. The State of California, DMV agreed with Matthew and threw out the blood test and set aside the suspension.
DUI Suspension Decision, Set Aside
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.
In the world of criminal defense, we often talk about the “totality of the circumstances.” It sounds like legal jargon, but in a notable case handled by Top Tier DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff (Appellate Division Case No. BR 053296), it was the difference between a DUI conviction and a total victory for constitutional rights.
Ruff took this case to the Appellate Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court to challenge a fundamental question: Can the police pull you over based solely on an anonymous caller seeing you get into a car with a glass of wine?.
The court’s answer was a resounding no. Here is why this case remains a significant win for California drivers and a masterclass in Fourth Amendment defense.
The Incident: A Tip and a Stop
A Redondo Beach police officer received a dispatch about a “possible drunk driver”. The source was a female caller who refused to provide her name. She reported seeing a female driver getting into a red Honda Accord with a glass of wine.
Within two minutes, the officer spotted the car. He did not see any erratic driving, no weaving, and no violations of the Vehicle Code. However, based strictly on the dispatch, he initiated a traffic stop. That stop led to a DUI investigation and an arrest.
The Legal Battle: Why the Stop Failed
Redondo Beach DUI Lawyer Matthew Ruff filed a PC 1538.5 Motion to Suppress and argued that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion. While the law allows for brief investigative stops, they must be based on more than a “hunch” or an unreliable anonymous tip.
The court looked at several key factors that distinguished this case from others, such as the U.S. Supreme Court case Navarette v. California:
• No Observation of Impairment: Unlike cases where callers reported reckless driving—such as being run off the road—this officer observed no driving indicative of impairment prior to the stop.
• Unknown Veracity: The caller was anonymous and refused to provide a name, meaning their reliability was “largely unknown and unknowable”.
• Assumptions vs. Facts: The officer testified he “assumed” the caller was an eyewitness, but the tip provided no information on how the caller knew the liquid in the glass was wine.
• Public Safety vs. Privacy: While courts give leeway to stop drivers who pose an immediate danger, the court ruled that simply entering a vehicle with a glass did not trigger the same urgent public safety concerns as active reckless driving.
“The tip here did not concern an allegation that defendant was under the influence or that she had been observed drinking alcohol.”
The Outcome: A Victory for the Fourth Amendment
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order, finding that the vehicle was stopped in violation of the driver’s Fourth Amendment rights. Because the initial stop was illegal, the evidence gathered afterward was suppressed.
Why This Case Matters Today
This victory by Torrance DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff serves as a critical reminder: Police cannot bypass the Constitution just because a phone rings. An anonymous tip must have “sufficient indicia of reliability” before the government can interfere with your liberty.
If you are stopped without cause, the evidence against you may be “fruit of the poisonous tree.” This case proves that with the right legal strategy, those rights can be successfully defended in court.
Many drivers believe that if a police officer sees them “weaving” within their own lane, it is an open-and-shut case for a DUI stop. However, as Top Tier Los Angeles DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff proved in a high-stakes DMV hearing, weaving within a lane is not always illegal.
In a recently highlighted case, Mr. Ruff successfully overturned a potential license suspension for a client who blew a 0.15% B.A.C.—nearly double the legal limit. Here is how he turned a “losing” hand into a total victory by focusing on the law, not just the numbers.
A Matter of Principle: Following the Constitution
Before diving into the legal mechanics, it is important to understand the philosophy behind this defense. Matthew Ruff does not condone driving under the influence. Public safety is paramount; however, he is a staunch advocate for the principle that the police must follow the law and the Constitution. If law enforcement is permitted to ignore the rules of the Fourth Amendment to secure an arrest, the rights of every citizen—sober or otherwise—are at risk. Attorney Ruff’s work ensures that the system remains accountable and that “reasonable suspicion” remains a high bar, not a moving target.
The Legal Trap: “Weaving” vs. Probable Cause
The prosecution felt they had a solid case: two breath tests recorded at 2:56 AM and 3:01 AM both showed a 0.15% B.A.C.
However, Matthew Ruff shifted the focus away from the breathalyzer and toward the initial stop. The arresting officer claimed the driver was “weaving within the lane.” Mr. Ruff argued that this, on its own, does not meet the legal threshold for a traffic stop.
The Winning Argument: The Solovij Standard
The law is clear: an officer must have a “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity to pull you over. Solivij v. Gourley, (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1229. In this case, Mr. Ruff utilized the Solovij case precedent, which establishes a critical protection for drivers:
• Staying in the Lines: Merely drifting or “weaving” within the boundaries of a single lane is often a normal part of driving and does not necessarily indicate impairment.
• Lack of Articulation: The officer failed to describe a specific, dangerous driving pattern. Simply saying a car was “weaving” without crossing lines or endangering others is legally insufficient.
The Judge agreed with Attorney Ruff, “weaving within a lane” is not necessarily a violation of the law! In support of his argument Matthew cited to a Federal case:
“If failure to follow a perfect vector down the highway or keeping one’s eyes on the road were sufficient reasons to suspect a person of driving while impaired, a substantial portion of the public would be subject each day to an invasion of privacy” US v. Lyons (10th Cir. 1993) 7 F.3d 973
The DMV Legal Ruling: “Officer Campbell failed to articulate the driving pattern which would substantiate the stop. Weaving within the lane is not adequate, and the Solovij case requires that the reason be articulated fully…”
Actual Set Aside Order, Reinstating License For Matthew Ruff’s Client
The Final Result: Evidence Set Aside
Because Defense Attorney Matthew Ruff proved the initial stop was unlawful, the DMV could not use the 0.15% B.A.C. results against the driver. The Driver Safety Officer officially ordered that the administrative action against the respondent’s driving privilege be dismissed and set aside.
The client walked away with their license intact and their driving record clean because Attorney Ruff held the Government ((DMV) to the letter of the law.
Key Takeaways for Drivers
This case serves as a powerful reminder:
1. Police Must Have a Reason: You cannot be pulled over for “weaving” unless that weaving is pronounced, continuous, or violates a specific traffic law.
2. The Stop is Everything: If the stop is illegal, the evidence (like a breath test) often becomes inadmissible.
Matthew Ruff’s victory highlights why Matthew is referred to as the “Master of DUI Defense” and the importance of an attorney who understands that defending a client is also about defending the legal standards that protect us all.
Matthew Ruff is a DUI Lawyer in Torrance, with offices throughout Southern California and Los Angeles County.
Facing a felony charge in Los Angeles is a life-altering event. For one Venice-based carpenter, a recent arrest for Assault with a Deadly Weapon (ADW) could have resulted in a permanent criminal record and significant prison time. However, thanks to the swift action and strategic early intervention of Los Angeles Defense Attorney Matthew Ruff, these serious charges were successfully dropped.
The High Stakes of the Case
The client was arrested on April 9, 2025, by Los Angeles authorities, LAPD. The booking record reveals the severity of the situation:
At 57 years old, the client was facing a legal battle that threatened his livelihood and his freedom.
The Power of Early Intervention
In many Los Angeles criminal cases, the most critical window for defense occurs before the first court date. By stepping in immediately after the arrest, Top Tier Defense Attorney Matthew Ruff was able to engage with prosecutors and law enforcement to present the defense’s side of the story before formal charges were solidified by the District Attorney.
Why Early Attorney Intervention Matters:
It allows a defense attorney to highlight evidentiary gaps, witness credibility issues, or mitigating circumstances that police may have overlooked during the initial excitement of an arrest.
A Proven Result
The booking record notes that the arrest was handled by the LAPD (indicated by the 1918 area code/reporting district). Through meticulous attorney early intervention and a deep understanding of ADW, California Penal Code PC245(A)(1), Matthew Ruff successfully navigated the complexities of the Los Angeles County court system to secure a favorable outcome, all charges dropped!
This outcome allowed the client to return to his life and his trade without the shadow of a felony conviction hanging over him.
Facing Criminal Charges in Los Angeles?
If you or a loved one has been booked on serious charges, time is your greatest enemy. As this case demonstrates, having an experienced advocate move quickly can make the difference between a prison sentence and a dropped case. Top Rated Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Matthew Ruff has over 30 years experience fighting for his clients rights.
The Catalina Island Wine Festival is one of Avalon’s most popular events, but for one attendee, the festivities ended with a high-stakes legal battle. Facing a DUI charge with a .29% Preliminary Alcohol Screening (PAS) result and a formal refusal charge, the suspect seemed destined for a mandatory one-year license suspension.
However, veteran Torrance DUI attorney Matthew Ruff stepped in, navigating the complexities of the Long Beach court system to secure a major reduction to a “Wet Reckless.”
The Incident: A “High-Centered” Golf Cart in Descanso Canyon
The arrest took place in Descanso Canyon, the heart of the wine festival. According to the police report, an officer noticed a golf cart “high-centered” on a planter. The driver was found slumped over the wheel, exhibiting clear signs of intoxication.
After admitting to consuming three shots of whiskey and attempting to drive back to his hotel, the suspect blew a .294% and .293% on a handheld PAS device—nearly four times the legal limit of .08%. See the actual (redacted) DUI police report below. The accused needed an experienced Catalina Island DUI Lawyer.
Actual Catalina Island DUI Report (Redacted)
The “Refusal” Complication
Once transported to the Avalon Station, the case took a turn for the worse. The suspect declined to take the official evidentiary chemical test. In California, a “refusal” typically triggers:
• A mandatory one-year “hard” license suspension (no restricted permit allowed).
• Enhanced penalties and potential jail time due to the high BAC.
How Matthew Ruff Secured the Reduction
Defending a case with a .29% PAS breath test and a DUI refusal is an uphill battle, but Mr. Ruff utilized a three-pronged strategy to dismantle the prosecution’s position:
1. Challenging the Wine Festival Environment
Events like the Wine Festival create chaotic environments for law enforcement. Attorney Ruff scrutinized whether the officers followed strict Title 17 regulations during the “observation period” before the PAS breath test. In a festival setting, distractions can lead to procedural errors that make high BAC readings contestable.
2. Technical Flaws in the .29% PAS Test
A PAS test (the handheld unit used in the field) is notoriously less reliable than the stationary machines used at mainland stations. Mr. Ruff attacked the calibration and maintenance records of the device used on the island. By creating doubt about the accuracy of that .29% reading, he weakened the prosecution’s “aggravated” DUI charge.
3. Mismanagement of the “Right to Counsel”
The police report noted the suspect tried to call an attorney before refusing the test. Mr. Ruff investigated whether the officers properly managed this request. If a suspect is confused about their right to an attorney versus their obligation to take a chemical test (known as “Officer-Induced Confusion“), the refusal charge can be dismissed.
The Outcome: Charges Dropped to “Wet Reckless”
By exposing these procedural and technical weaknesses, Mr. Ruff, a seasoned Long Beach DUI Lawyer, convinced the Long Beach District Attorney to drop the DUI and the refusal allegation. The client pleaded to a “Wet Reckless” (VC 23103 per 23103.5).
The result?
• License Saved: The client avoided the one-year “hard” suspension.
• Reduced Fines: Thousands of dollars in potential fines were waived.
• No Jail Time: Despite the high BAC, the client avoided the mandatory jail time often associated with a .29% reading and refusing the required chemical test.
Experience Matters in Avalon Cases
DUI arrests on Catalina Island are unique, and the Long Beach court requires a specific tactical approach. Matthew Ruff’s 30 years of experience proved that even the most “open and shut” cases can be won when the defense knows where to look for errors.
