The court cited the California Supreme Court’s 2006 ruling that found the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control violated state law by assigning the prosecutor of a business whose beverage license was under review to prepare a fact-finding report and send it to the department while the decision was still pending.
A 2005 California law prohibited all state agencies — except the DMV — from assigning an employee to preside over a hearing if the same employee has acted as an advocate or investigator in the same case.
“People lose their jobs — truck drivers, airline pilots, police officers. These are high stakes cases for lots of people,” he said. “I’ve been doing DUI defense for over 30 years, this is probably the biggest case in the field.”
Bartell said the DMV has postponed all hearings this week, beginning Wednesday, in light of the appellate ruling.
Wednesday, April 20, 2022
it turns out the California DMV has been operating a DUI hearing court quite unconstitutionally, for a very long time, and I wonder how long they've known about it. These fundamental constitutional rights could be taught in high school... that's a different issue
The method used by the California Department of Motor Vehicles to suspend the drivers’ licenses of some motorists arrested for driving under the influence is unconstitutional, an appellate court has ruled.
Typically, the DMV conducts suspension hearings for some DUI defendants in which the “judge” also acts as the department’s “prosecutor.” Only rarely do the drivers win.
A three-member panel of the Second District Court of Appeal ruled Friday that the dual role of the hearing officer/advocate creates an unacceptable risk of bias — a decision that could affect tens of thousands of hearings a year. According to the DMV, 123,548 people were arrested for driving under the influence in 2017 and 4,944 arrested for felony drunken driving statewide.
“Combining the roles of advocate and adjudicator in a single person employed by the DMV violates due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and the California constitution,” justices wrote.
No comments:
Post a Comment