A refusal allegation in a California DUI arrest carries severe administrative penalties: an automatic, mandatory 1-year driver’s license suspension with no option for a restricted driving permit. However, procedural precision matters. Top DMV refusal defense attorney Matthew Ruff recently secured an Order of Set Aside from the California DMV Driver Safety Branch in El Segundo, completely restoring a client’s full driving privileges following a Redondo Beach DUI arrest.  

Here is how strategic legal analysis defeated a refusal suspension.

The Incident & Arrest

In July 2026, Redondo Beach Police officers conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle for a red-light violation (CVC §22450(a)). Upon contacting the driver, officers noted objective symptoms of alcohol intoxication—including bloodshot/watery eyes, slurred speech, and an unsteady gait.  

Following Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs), the officer placed the driver under arrest for DUI under California Vehicle Code §23152(a). When asked to submit to a chemical test (breath or blood), the driver declined.  

The Legal Vulnerability: Defective Admonition

Under California Implied Consent laws (CVC §13353), an officer must inform an arrested driver that failing or refusing to complete a chemical test will result in a mandatory license suspension.  

While the officer checked the standard pre-printed boxes on the DMV Form DS 367 claiming the admonition was read verbatim, master of dui defense, Matthew Ruff identified a fatal flaw in the officer’s written crime report. In his sworn narrative, the officer wrote: “I again explained to [Driver] that his license could be suspended by the DMV if he refused.”

The Winning Legal Argument

Redondo Beach DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff filed a targeted Memorandum of Points and Authorities demanding a full Set Aside of the administrative action based on controlling California case law:  

 Mandatory vs. Permissive Warnings: Under statutory law, a driver must be informed that suspension is a mandatory legal certainty, not a possible outcome. Using permissive language like “could” or “may” misinforms the driver and deprives them of an informed choice.  

 Controlling Precedent (Giomi & Decker): Pursuant to Giomi v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1971) and Decker v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1972), telling a driver their license “could” be suspended invalidates the admonition as a matter of law.  

 Oral Modification Overrides Form Recitation: Even if an officer reads the DS 367 form initially, subsequent oral statements stating suspension is merely possible create ambiguity that negates the legal validity of the warning.  

The Outcome: Complete DMV Set Aside

The DMV Legal Affairs Division reviewed the brief and the officer’s contemporaneous reports. On September 10, 2026, the Department issued an official Order of Set Aside under CVC §13353.