DUI Case Law

The list below is a randomly chosen sample of over 10,000 appealate rulings that can apply to a DUI case in California.

Brierton v. Department of Motor Vehicles (Fourth District, Division 1, Court of Appeal 2005)

Arresting officer had reasonable suspicion required by DMV to initiate traffic stop of licensee was for "peeling out" tires even though licensee did not in fact violate code.

Kodani v. Snyder (Second District, Division 2, Court of Appeal 1999)

Arresting officer had reasonable suspicion required by DMV to initiate traffic stop of licensee for failure to wear a set belt even though Officer could not observe from his viewpoint whether defendant wore a lap belt nor knew whether defendant's car model was equipped with a shoulder harness.

Lowry v. Gutierrez (District 2, Division 7, Court of Appeal 2005)

Arresting officer had reasonable suspicion required by DMV to initiate traffic stop of licensee for suspicion of drunk driving based on an allegation of reckless or erratic driving reported by an anonymous cell phone caller.

Roelfsema v. Department of Motor Vehicles (Sixth District, Court of Appeal 1995)

At a DMV hearing under CVC § 13558, the DMV is not required to prove the lawfulness of a sobriety checkpoint unless the licensee first raises the issue.

People v. Banks­ (CA Supreme Court 1993)

Advance publicity is not a constitutional prerequisite to operation of highway sobriety checkpoints and arrests stemming from such sobriety checkpoints are lawful according to Ingersoll v. Palmer and Michigan State Police Dept. v. Sitz.

Mercer v. Department of Motor Vehicles (CA Supreme Court 1991)

The DMV may not suspend or revoke a driver's license under CVC § 13353 (refusal) for licensee's failure to submit to chemical testing in the absence of evidence of observed volitional movement of licensee's vehicle. Superseded by Statute pending Troppman v. Gourley (2005) decision .

Troppman v. Gourley (First District, Division 3, Court of Appeal 2005)

Arresting officer need only to have reasonable cause to believe that licensee was driving under the influence, and not have proof of actual driving, for the DMV to suspend license where licensee refuses to submit to a breath test in violation of CVC § 23612 (implied consent). Case certified by CA Supreme Court, awaiting decision Rice v. Pierce (First District, Division 5 1988), The DMV need not prove actual in fact driving in order suspend or revoke a driver's license based on licensee's failure to submit to chemical testing pursuant to CVC § 23157 (implied consent).

Machado v. Department of Motor Vehicles (Sixth District, Court of Appeal 1992)

The DMV need not prove actual in fact driving in order to suspend or revoke a driver's license based on licensee's failure to submit to chemical testing pursuant to CVC § 23157 (implied consent).

Bobus v. Department of Motor Vehicles (First District, Division 5, Court of Appeal 2005)

The Court of Appeal upheld the DMV's suspension of a minor's license under CVC § 13353.2 upon finding that cough syrup containing alcohol is an alcoholic beverage within the meaning of CVC § 23136(a) (illegal for a person under the age of 21 to drive with a blood alcohol level of 0.01 percent or more).