Top-rated DUI defense attorney Matthew Ruff has successfully secured a “Set Aside” of a driver’s license suspension in a contested DMV administrative hearing, despite breath test results of .12/.13, by exposing critical flaws in the police officer’s sworn statement, Ruff demonstrated that the Department of Motor Vehicles failed to meet its burden of proof, resulting in a full dismissal of the suspension action against his client and immediate reinstatement of driving privileges.

The Case: “Reckless Driving” Without the Facts

The case centered on a traffic stop initiated by law enforcement for alleged “reckless driving.” and subsequent breath test results of .12%/13% BAC. However, the official report (Form DS 367) relied entirely on a single, vague statement: “the subject was contacted after being pulled over for reckless driving by CHP officer Fromm”.  

Torrance DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff argued that this statement was legally insufficient. Under California law, an officer must possess “specific and articulable facts” to justify a detention, rather than “mere legal conclusions”. Ruff contended that simply labeling driving as “reckless” is a subjective opinion, not an observational fact.  

The Winning Strategy: Exposing Hearsay and Lack of Evidence

The defense strategy focused on two major legal deficiencies in the DMV’s case:

1. The “Conclusory Evidence” Argument

Matthew Ruff utilized the DMV’s own Driver Safety Manual to argue that an officer must document specific behaviors—such as swerving, near-misses, or extreme speed—rather than just checking a box or writing a conclusion like “reckless driving”.

“A statement that a driver was ‘reckless’ is a legal conclusion, not a fact… Under DMV guidelines, ‘reckless driving’ is a subjective label that does not meet the constitutional threshold unless supported by a detailed description.” 

2. The “Multiple Hearsay” Defense

Crucially, the officer who wrote the report was not the officer who witnessed the alleged driving. This created a “multiple hearsay” issue. Ruff argued that because the reporting officer lacked personal knowledge of the facts, the report was “untrustworthy” and failed to qualify for the Official Records exception to the hearsay rule. 

“A reporting officer who did not witness the stop lacks the personal knowledge required to make the record ‘trustworthy’.” 

The Result: License Suspension Set Aside

Because the DMV bears the burden of proving the stop was lawful, and because the evidence provided was merely a conclusion without supporting facts, the hearing officer was compelled to rule in favor of the licensee. The attorney successfully argued that accepting such a vague report would violate the driver’s Due Process rights to a fair hearing by a neutral fact-finder.  

This victory highlights the importance of retaining an experienced DUI attorney who understands the nuances of the DMV administrative process and knows how to challenge the “official duty presumption”.  

About Matthew Ruff

Matthew Ruff is a seasoned criminal defense attorney with over 30 years of experience defending clients in DUI and DMV hearings across California.