Matthew J. Ruff, Torrance DUI Attorney; Criminal Defense Lawyer

Winning a DUI refusal hearing at the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is widely considered one of the steepest uphill battles in administrative law. Under California Vehicle Code (CVC) § 13353, an alleged failure or refusal to submit to a chemical test carries a mandatory one-to-three-year driver’s license suspension with zero allowance for a restricted license.  

However, top-tier “Master of DUI defense” attorney Matthew J. Ruff recently secured a complete Set Aside in an administrative refusal proceeding originating out of Imperial County, proving once again that when law enforcement fails to follow strict constitutional guidelines, the charges cannot stand.  

The Case Background: An Alleged DUI Refusal at the Border

The client was initially stopped and detained at the Calexico East Port of Entry by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). CBP agents reported observing slurred speech and dilated pupils, holding the client in a detention room for 47 minutes before transferring custody to the California Highway Patrol (CHP).  

Upon arrival, the responding CHP officer noted objective symptoms of impairment. After the client declined voluntary field sobriety tests and invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, he was formally arrested for DUI. Following the arrest, the officer read the standard California Implied Consent Admonition. When asked to submit to an evidentiary chemical test (breath or blood), the client repeatedly stated, “Under duress I could not”.  

The CHP treated this response as an explicit chemical test refusal, confiscated the driver’s license, and initiated a mandatory CVC § 13353 administrative suspension.  

The Strategic Defense: Exposing Missing Evidence & Constitutional Violations

To sustain a refusal suspension under CVC § 13353, the DMV bears the legal burden of proving three core elements by a preponderance of admissible evidence:  

1. The officer had reasonable cause to believe the person was driving under the influence.  

2. The person was lawfully arrested or detained.  

3. The person refused or failed to complete a chemical test after being properly admonished.  

Top DUI Refusal Attorney Matthew Ruff zeroed in on the second crucial element: the legality of the initial stop and detention.  

1. The Missing CBP Supplemental Report (The “Harvey-Madden” Rule Failure)

The arresting CHP officer did not observe the client driving or operating a vehicle. Instead, the CHP narrative explicitly relied upon a supplemental report from a specific CBP agent to explain why the vehicle was stopped in the first place.  

However, when attorney Matthew Ruff audited the DMV’s official discovery packet, the CBP agent’s supplemental report was completely absent. Under California’s established Harvey-Madden rule (People v. Harvey; People v. Madden), when an arresting officer relies on information or a detention initiated by another agency, the state must produce competent evidence establishing that the initiating officer had specific, articulable facts justifying the initial intrusion.  

Mr. Ruff argued that officer hearsay on a DS 367 form cannot substitute for foundational proof (Carlton v. DMV). Without the underlying federal report, there was zero admissible evidence proving the initial stop was lawful.  

2. Rebutting Evidence Code § 664 Presumptions

The prosecution often attempts to bypass missing stop records by assuming border contacts occur at routine, fixed checkpoints—where no individualized suspicion is required under United States v. Martinez-Fuerte.  

Mr. Ruff aggressively dismantled this presumption using California Evidence Code § 664. While official duty is generally presumed regularly performed, EC § 664 explicitly does not apply to validate a warrantless detention or arrest. Because stops conducted away from fixed ports by “roving patrols” require articulable reasonable suspicion (United States v. Brignoni-Ponce), the complete silence of the record meant the DMV could not simply “presume” the contact occurred at a fixed lane rather than via an unlawful roving stop.  

3. The Prolonged 47-Minute “De Facto” Arrest

Even if the initial contact had been valid, holding the client in a secured bench room for 47 minutes while awaiting secondary agency turnover exceeded the constitutional limits of a brief investigatory Terry stop (Terry v. Ohio; Florida v. Royer). Without probable cause at the moment of initial confinement, holding a citizen in a custodial setting for nearly an hour matured into an unlawful de facto arrest long before CHP arrived (Dunaway v. New York).  

4. Why an Illegal Stop Vindicates a Refusal

Under long-standing California Supreme Court precedent (Mercer v. DMV), a motorist is only legally required to submit to chemical testing if they have been lawfully detained or arrested. Because the initial seizure was constitutionally invalid due to a complete failure of proof, the client was under no legal obligation to submit to testing. Therefore, no refusal could be sustained as a matter of law.  

The Verdict: Official Order of Set Aside

Following the submission of attorney Matthew Ruff’s comprehensive legal brief and closing arguments, the DMV Driver Safety Branch conceded.  

On September 23, 2026, the DMV issued an official Order of Set Aside or Reinstatement, completely vacating the suspension action, clearing the driver safety record, and fully restoring the client’s California driving privilege.

Key Takeaways for Drivers Facing a DUI Refusal

 A Refusal Charge Is Not an Automatic Loss: Even when an officer checks the “Refusal” box on a DS 367 form, the state must still prove every constitutional step leading up to the test demand.  

 Paperwork Gaps Break the Chain: Police agencies frequently fail to forward inter-agency supplemental reports. An experienced DUI defense attorney knows how to exploit these discovery gaps.  

 Protect Your Rights Early: You only have 10 days from the date of a DUI arrest to request a DMV Administrative Per Se hearing and stay an automatic license suspension.

If you or a loved one is facing a DUI charge or DMV license suspension in Los Angeles County, Kern County, or Southern California, contact Los Angeles DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff for a direct, expert case evaluation.

Disclaimer