Wednesday, April 15, 2026
Page 3
Driver’s License Suspension Is Not Marred by Officer’s Non-Elaboration in Report—C.A.
Description of DUI Arrestee’s Response to Request to Take Chemical Test as ‘REFUSAL’ Did Not Violate Statute Requiring ‘All’ Relevant Facts
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district has rejected the contention that a one-year driver’s license suspension for declining to submit to a chemical test for blood alcohol content was invalidly imposed because the arresting officer’s sworn report did not contain “all” relevant information concerning the motorist’s response to a request for compliance with the implied-consent law, but merely contained the statement, “REFUSAL.”
Justice Tari L. Cody authored Div. Six’s unpublished opinion, filed Monday. It affirms Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Patricia L. Kelly’s Nov. 6, 2024 denial of a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus sought by motorist Ariana Garcia, contesting the license-lifting by the Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) following a hearing.
Kelly found that the “critical fact of refusal was duly recorded in the sworn statement.”
Uncontested Facts
It was uncontested that on March 2, 2024, California Highway Patrol Officer Nathan Burd investigated a traffic accident; determined that Garcia was not at fault but, detecting signs of her having consumed alcohol, asked her to submit to a chemical test; and warned of the consequence of a license-suspension for not providing a blood or breath sample. Burd arrested Garcia for violating Vehicle Code §23152(a) which provides:
“It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage to drive a vehicle.”
An unsworn “crash report” made by Burd quotes Garcia as saying, “I refuse to submit to a test.” However, in the space on the form report inquiring as to Garcia’s response the isolating officer’s request, he merely wrote, “Refusal.”
At issue on appeal was whether there was compliance with Vehicle Code §13380. It requires officers making driving-under-the-influence arrests to complete a sworn form for the DMV containing “all information relevant to the enforcement action,” setting forth either “a report of the results of any chemical tests that were conducted on the person or the circumstances constituting a refusal to submit to or complete the chemical testing.”
Supreme Court Decision
The appellant relied upon the California Supreme Court’s 2004 opinion in MacDonald v. Gutierrez in which then-Justice Janice Rogers Brown (now retired) said:
“Section 13380 provides the arresting officer’s sworn report will contain ‘all information relevant to the enforcement action.’ Therefore, the Legislature clearly anticipates the sworn report will contain all or nearly all of the information necessary to remove the offender’s license. In light of this legislative intent, the sworn report cannot be wholly devoid of relevant information.”
Brown added that “so long as a sworn report is filed, it is consistent with the relaxed evidentiary standards of an administrative per se hearing that technical omissions of proof can be corrected by an unsworn report filed by the arresting officer.”
Appellant’s View
Garcia argued that under that decision, “the DMV may rely on an officer’s unsworn statement to correct technical omissions of proof, but only if the sworn report itself is not ‘wholly devoid of relevant information.’ ”
She asserted:
“Had the DMV followed MacDonald and excluded Burd’s unsworn report, it would not have been able to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Garcia refused to submit to a chemical test and, thus, would have had no basis to suspend Garcia’s driving privilege….This is because Burd’s conclusory, one-word depiction of Garcia’s ‘refusal’ contains no facts upon which a hearing officer or judge could rely to suspend or revoke Garcia’s license.”
DMV’s Position
The DMV countered:
This isn’t a case where the only thing written on the sworn statement was the word ‘refusal.’ Rather, Officer Burd filled the sworn statement in its entirety and provided a plethora of detail relevant to Appellant’s arrest and suspension, including checked boxes indicating that Appellant refused either a [preliminary alcohol screening] or a chemical test.”
It added:
“…Vehicle Code section 13557, subdivision (a) requires the Department to ‘consider the sworn report submitted by the peace officer...and any other evidence accompanying the report.’…This section consequently mandates that both the sworn and unsworn reports submitted by Officer Burd must be admitted and considered at an [administrative] hearing.”
Cody’s Opinion
Cody wrote that in light of §13557(a). “DMV did not err when it considered a crash report expressly referenced, by number, in Officer Burd’s sworn report,” adding:
“To the contrary, the agency would have erred had it not considered it given subdivision (a)’s mandate to consider ‘any other evidence accompanying the report.’ ”
Although Burd did say in his sworn report, “See the crash report…for further information,” Cody made note:
“We do not suggest an arresting officer must expressly reference and incorporate a document for it to ‘accompany’ their sworn report, or that subdivision (a) limits the evidence DMV may consider.”
The case is Garcia v. Gordon, B343552.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company