Under California’s implied consent law (Vehicle Code § 23612), a driver arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence is required to submit to a post-arrest chemical test. Alleging a chemical test refusal allows the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to trigger an immediate, mandatory one-year “hard” suspension under Vehicle Code § 13353—a harsh penalty with zero eligibility for a restricted driver’s license.
In a recent Administrative Per Se (APS) hearing, Compton DUI attorney Matthew Ruff successfully defeated a DUI refusal allegation on behalf of a Compton, California resident, forcing the DMV to issue a full Order of Set Aside and completely restoring the client’s driving privileges. (See Below)
The Incident and High-Stakes Allegations
The case began following a traffic stop and subsequent arrest by Long Beach Police Department. Officers claimed the driver operated a motor vehicle while impaired and subsequently refused to submit to or complete a chemical breath or blood test following the arrest.
Pursuant to standard DMV procedures, law enforcement issued a suspension order citing Vehicle Code § 13353 and § 23612. In California, a chemical test refusal carries severe legal administrative penalties:
1-Year “Hard” Suspension: Complete loss of driving privileges for 12 months, without eligibility for a restricted license to commute to work or school.
No Ignition Interlock Device (IID) Exception: Unlike standard first-offense DUIs, refusal suspensions do not allow for an immediate IID-restricted license.
Enhanced Criminal Penalties: Allegations of a refusal to submit to a breath or blood test can also trigger mandatory additional jail time and extended DUI alcohol education programs in criminal court.
The Legal Strategy & Hearing Challenge
To sustain a refusal suspension at an APS hearing, the DMV Driver Safety Branch must establish four strict statutory elements by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. The officer had reasonable cause to believe the driver was operating a motor vehicle in violation of DUI statutes.
2. The driver was placed under a lawful arrest.
3. The driver was properly admonished regarding the consequences of refusing a test under VC § 23612.
4. The driver explicitly refused or failed to complete a chemical test.
Recognizing weaknesses in the law enforcement documentation and procedures, Matthew Ruff requested a formal administrative hearing to stay the pending suspension and examine the state’s evidence. Through a thorough review of the police incident reports, officer sworn statements (Form DS-367), and body-worn camera footage, Attorney Ruff challenged whether law enforcement met all mandatory statutory requirements.
By highlighting key inconsistencies in how the refusal admonition was presented and demonstrating procedural defects in the arrest sequence, Attorney Ruff successfully argued that the state failed to meet its burden of proof.
The Result: Complete Set Aside & License Reinstatement
Upon reviewing the evidence presented at the hearing, the DMV Legal Affairs Division, Driver Safety Branch issued an official Order of Set Aside or Reinstatement.
The DMV ruled that the proposed suspension action effective under Vehicle Code § 13353 and § 23612 was set aside in its entirety.
Key Takeaways from the Victory:
Suspension Overturned: The mandatory 1-year hard suspension was rescinded.
Full Reinstatement: The client was cleared to retain and use their valid California driver’s license.
No Driving Restrictions: The driver avoided the devastating career and personal consequences associated with a year-long complete ban on driving.
Note on Privacy: In accordance with attorney-client confidentiality and privacy standards, all personal client identifying details, case file numbers, and sensitive report identifiers have been redacted from this summary.
