Page 1
DMV May Disclose License-Suspension Based on DUI Despite Lack of Conviction—C.A.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The First District Court of Appeal has held that although a motorist who was arrested for driving under the influence or refusing to take a chemical test, and who was not prosecuted or had the charges dismissed, has a right to nondisclosure of the fact of the arrest, there no entitlement to a withholding of the reason for a driver’s license suspension, in recent years, even if this will necessarily reveal that the person was taken into custody.
Procedures utilized by the Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) are “sufficiently reliable,” Acting Presiding Justice Mark B. Simons of Div. Five wrote, that the Legislature has determined that suspensions “should only be vacated by a criminal court acquittal, and not by other nonconviction dispositions in a criminal proceeding.” Based in part on that reliability factor, he concluded that so long as the suspension remains on the individual’s “driver’s record,” the reasons for it are disclosable.
Notations of some suspensions are removed from the record when the license is restored, others are excised three years later. This is in contrast to notations of DUI convictions that can remain on the record for up to 10 years.
Partial Reversal
The opinion, filed Friday, partially reverses a judgment for injunctive relief awarded by Alameda Superior Court Judge Brad Seligman in favor of five pseudonymous plaintiffs whose records were disclosed and Steve Thomasberger, suing as a taxpayer. They brought a 2016 action against the DMV and its then-director, Jean Shiomoto.
Seligman found that the DMV, in providing the information to employers, to insurers and other “commercial requesters,” and to individuals with legitimate interests in the records, referred to as “casual requesters,” violates Art. I, §1 of the state Constitution—which proclaims “privacy” to be among the people’s “inalienable rights”—and Labor Code §432.7. Excepted from his ruling were commercial drivers.
Sec. 432.7(g)(2) says:
“Any…person authorized by law to receive criminal…record information maintained by a local law enforcement criminal… shall not knowingly disclose any information received pertaining to an arrest or detention or proceeding that did not result in a conviction…to any person not authorized by law to receive that information.”
Simon noted that “Plaintiffs assume the scope of the statutory and constitutional prohibitions are the same in relevant respects; we do so as well.”
Right to Privacy
He declared:
“The rights to privacy set out in our state constitution and various statutes are among our most cherished. But they are not without limit.”
The plaintiffs argued that the DMV is not apprised of the alleged offenses of driving with an excessive alcohol blood content or refusing to give a blood or breath sample unless there is an arrest, so that revealing these reasons for an “administrative per se” (“APS”) suspension automatically discloses “information...pertaining to an arrest.”
Simons agreed that “an arrest is an integral part of the process leading to an APS suspension” but rejected the plaintiffs’ reasoning, saying:
“Instead, revealing the reason for an APS suspension discloses the result of an independent administrative adjudication.”
Noting that while an arrest, to be valid, must be predicated on probable cause while a suspension of driving privileges necessitates a showing by the DMV of transgressions by a preponderance of the evidence, “a higher standard,” the jurist said:
“[T]he low threshold required for an arrest and the absence of any prearrest adversarial testing renders nonconviction arrests unreliable indicators of wrongdoing, and therefore in need of privacy protection to prevent their improper use. In contrast, an arrest does not lead to an APS suspension unless and until the offense is established under a higher standard and, upon the licensee’s request, the accusation is tested in an adversarial evidentiary hearing.”
Other issues were dealt with in the published and in an unpublished portion of the opinion.
The case is Doe v. California Department of Motor Vehicles, 2024 S.O.S. 2044.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company