There exists a plethora of ways that the California DMV can suspend a person’s drivers license.  Fortunately, a DMV Hearing Attorney can fight those suspensions and each and every person facing the loss of their license has the right to do so.  Among the most common types of license suspension proceedings are APS, due to a DUI, a negligent operator, due to too many points, or a medical or lack of skill due to some mental or physical condition.

According to Matthew Ruff, a Torrance DMV Hearing Attorney who has personally conducted thousands of hearings at the DMV driver safety, the law tends to favor the state in suspension actions.  This is largely the result of favorable evidentiary rules that allow the department to suspend without any actual live witness testimony.  In fact most DMV hearings that take place are based essentially on paperwork and forms.  For example, the most favorable rule that helps the DMV to take action against a person’s driving privilege is the “official duty presumption” that says a police officer or any other government employee is presumed to be correct and follow their official duty and to act in accordance with that duty.  This rule puts the licensee in the position of presenting evidence to rebut that presumption in order to overcome a written report that may disfavor the licensee.  There are a myriad of other laws, rules and codes that can hinder a driver in fighting a suspension on his own.  It is for this reason that hiring a DMV hearing lawyer makes sense.  Most attorneys that conduct hearings regularly know the nuances and technical loopholes that can save a license.

The biggest problem with fighting a DMV suspension is that most people don’t understand there is a 10 day deadline to contest the suspension.

CVC §13558(b) states: “[if] the person wishes to have a hearing before the effective date of the order of suspension or revocation, the request for a hearing shall be made within 10 days of the receipt of the notice of the order of suspension or revocation.” (Emphasis added). The first half of the sentence operates to modify or qualify the second half, containing the ten-day provision. Grammatically, the ten day requirement was written to limit the requests for hearings and determinations within thirty days of service of the order of suspension. In fact, every provision of the APS laws that refer to the ten-day-time restriction qualifies the requirement with language related to having a hearing prior to the effective date of the suspension. The 10-day-time restriction clearly does not operate as a bar to all requests made after the 10 days have expired. Construing all of these provisions in pari material (the cannon of construction requiring that statutes on the same subject matter be construed together) results in an interpretation that a licensee is still entitled to a hearing on his suspension even if his request is beyond the 10-day period.