Save Your License - Save Your Job
If a license suspension or DUI conviction could cost your career, than don't leave anything up to chance. Learn from an expert what your best defense could be.
If you need to keep your drivers license or professional license, then you want the build the best possible case for fighting the DMV!
CA's most sought after attorney for DUI defense, and license protection.
You can fight for your rights,
freedoms, and driving privilege.
In November 2014 the Client was convicted of a first offense DUI in Orange County. Subsequent to the conviction, the DMV issued a two year second offender suspension notice to the Client based on a June 2005 Ohio “DUI” conviction and the Orange County conviction.
We sent the DMV a letter demanding it remove the Ohio conviction and correct the suspension notice to a first offense or face court action since the DUI law is Ohio and California were different. As we were heading to court the DMV complied with the demand and the Client was able to get a restricted license.
In June of 2004, the Client was convicted in Utah of operating a vehicle with a “metabolite of a controlled substance” in his body. In March of 2008 the Client was convicted of DUI in Los Angeles County. The DMV suspended the Client's license as a first offender. One year after the Client had completed all requirements to have his license reinstated, the DMV gave the Client a two-year second offender suspension.
The offense the Client was convicted for in Utah is not a crime in California; therefore, the DMV acted without legal authority when it used that conviction as a basis for suspending the Client’s license. We were able to remove the Utah conviction from the Client's record.
The Client was convicted of a single DUI in the State of Arizona. However, the DMV put the conviction on his driving record twice and issued a two year second offender suspension.
The DMV settled the case by correcting the Client’s driving record to only reflect a single conviction, allowing the Client to be eligible for a restricted driver license.
Client was stopped by the CHP for “weaving.” At the Client’s DMV hearing, the DMV refused to view the video or admit it into evidence. The DMV then suspended his license for four-months, and his commercial license for one-year.
We filed a Write challenging the DMV's violation of the Client's Due Process right and was granted a new hearing. We were able to demonstrate that it was likely the DMV had abused its discretion because the video demonstrated the traffic stop of the Client was unlawful. The Court put the suspension on hold while the case is pending.
The Client was represented by another attorney at his DMV hearing that took place subsequent to his DUI arrest. The hearing officer agreed to allow the Client to present expert testimony in his defense. The hearing officer was then overruled by her supervisors and told the Client could not present his defense. The DMV then suspended the Client’s license.
We filed a writ of mandate alleging that the DMV had violated the Client’s Due Process right to a fair and meaningful hearing before suspending his license. Client was able to get a new hearing and DMV settled the case by paying a portion of the Client's attorney's fees.
The Client was arrested for DUI when she was involved in an accident. She caused minor damage to another vehicle; however, her car rolled several times and she was severely injured. Nobody else was injured in the collision. In additional to a license suspension the DMV also revoked the Client’s license for having caused a serious injury accident.
We filed a motion to put the revocation on hold while the case is pending. Before we ever set foot in a courtroom, the DMV contacted us to settle the case.
After the Client was arrested for DUI, he completed breath tests with results of 0.08%. During his DMV hearing, his attorney presented evidence that the breath testing device was malfunctioning. DMV ended this hearing early and issued a one-year license suspension and one-year disqualification of the Client's Class A license.
We filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Superior Court and conducted an emergency, Ex Parte, hearing before the judge to get the DMV's action on hold. Our arguments were so overwhelming that the DMV agreed to set aside the suspension and disqualification of the Client's license.
The Client was stopped for allegedly weaving and subsequently administered a preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) test with a BAC result of 0.03%. Despite the evidence that proved the client had not committed any violations, the DMV suspended the Client’s license for one-year.
We filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Superior Court and conducted an emergency, Ex Parte, hearing before the judge to get the DMV’s action put on hold while the case was pending. The evidence was so overwhelming, the judge ordered the court to pay the Client's attorney fee and set aside the suspension.
The Client was convicted of DUI in California in 2002. In July 2005, the Client got another “DUI” in Hawaii. Since then, the DMV renewed the Client’s driver license three times. Ten years later, the DMV suspended the Client’s driver license for two years based on his Hawaii “second offense.”
We demonstrated that not only did a “DUI” conviction in Hawaii not meet the criteria to be a DUI in California, but that the DMV had taken too long to take action against the Client. DMV contacted us and agreed to drop the suspension action and removed the Hawaii conviction from the Client’s driving record.
The Client was convicted of “DUI” in Ohio in September of 2009 and in the following month, the DMV suspended the Client’s driver license. The DMV did not have the legally required documents from Ohio when they suspended the license.
We were able to demonstrate that DMV did not have the required documents. Rather than facing the potential of a large attorney fee award by the court, they agreed to set aside the suspension and pay a portion of the Client’s attorney fees.
The Client was stopped and arrested for DUI. While still at the scene of the arrest, but after she was arrested, the officer administered two breath tests. When the Client asked the officer what happened to her blood after it was tested, the officer declared her a refusal.
Case settled out of court. The DMV agreed to grant Client a new DMV hearing and stay the suspensions of her license pending the outcome of the new hearing.
The Client is a truck driver dependent on his Class A commercial license in order to earn a living. While driving his car, he was stopped by the CHP for “weaving.” His attorney obtained a copy of a video of the stop, which showed that the Client was not committing any violation of the rules of the road
The DMV agreed to grant Client a new DMV hearing and stay the suspensions of his licenses pending the outcome of the new hearing.
The Client was stopped for DUI. He did a Preliminary Alcohol Screening (PAS) test 22 minutes after being stopped with a result of 0.086%, and two minutes later a PAS of 0.088%. Twenty-six minutes later he did a blood test with a 0.08% result. At the DMV hearing the Client’s expert testified his BAC was rising and 0.07% or less at the time of driving. The DMV suspended the Client’s license anyway.
We were able to demonstrate that it was likely the DMV had abused its discretion by completely disregarding the Client's expert’s testimony. The Court put the suspension on hold while the case is pending.
Our Client provided a blood sample during his DUI arrest, which was tested with a 0.09% result according to the Sheriff’s Crime Lab. A re-test at an independent lab showed a result of 0.07%. The DMV ignored the re-test and suspended our Client’s license.
We showed that our Client’s expert witness was credible and the DMV’s expert was not. Without the three-hour presumption the DMV did not have evidence that our Client was driving with a BAC of 0.08% or more. The Court agreed and set-aside the suspension.
Our client was under the age of 21 when she was arrested for a hit and run collision & a DUI with a BAC of 0.20%. The DA did NOT file a complaint before the date that the Client had promised to appear in court. The District Attorney issued a warrant for the Client’s arrest; however, the Client was never notified of the warrant.
We filed a motion for violation of the Client’s constitutional right to a speedy trial. The court agreed her right had been violated and dismissed the case.
Our Client made a left turn in front of a speeding motorcycle. The motorcyclist was killed when he collided with the our Client’s SUV. The DMV sought to revoke the Client’s license for negligently causing the death of another motorist.
We were able to demonstrate, through accident recreation and investigation, that the Client was not responsible for causing the fatal accident; and, that she could not have reasonably avoided the accident. The DMV agreed to our arguments and set aside the proposed Los Angeles license revocation.
The DMV refused to give our Client a driving test and summarily concluded she was not physically able to operate a car and revoked her license. Our Client hired another law firm to help her with no success. Then she came to us for assistance.
After the local DMV driver safety office refused our request to grant her a reexamination we sent a letter to DMV Headquarters asserting the Client’s legal right to a reexamination and threatening court action. Within one week the DMV contacted us to schedule the reexamination.
The DA had only subpoenaed the driving officer, not the passenger/arresting officer. The DA tried to continue the motion to subpoena the correct cop. We vigorously opposed the motion on the grounds that the DA had not been diligent in preparation.
The judge agreed with us, and because the DA had not subpoenaed the arresting officer they were unable to proceed in the time required by law. DUI dismissed!
The officer declared the Client's case as "a refusal", even though she gave 2 sets of breath records. The DMV refused to hear her testimony and suspended her license for one-year!
We got the judge to order the DMV to reinstate the Client's license while the case was pending, by arguing that she had completed a chemical test after being arrested, and that the DMV violated her Due Process Rights.
A truck driver who is dependent on his license to make a living, was stopped by the CHP for “weaving”, and arrested for DUI. At his DMV hearing, the DMV refused to admit the CHP video (which showed no driving violation) into evidence. His license was suspended for one year!
We were able to demonstrate that it was likely the DMV had violated the Client’s Due Process Right to a fair and meaningful hearing before it suspended his licenses. The Court put the suspension on hold while the case is pending.
Frequently Asked Questions - DMV Hearings
A DMV hearing is a legal proceeding similar to other court proceedings like a trial(and are held at the courthouse not the DMV). DMV hearings are overseen by a “DMV hearing officer”, who works for the DMV and is not a lawyer or judge, but still has the sole discretion to suspend your license.
No, your DMV and DUI cases are separate. You must file for a separate hearing with the DMV to contest the suspension or revocation of your driving privilege.
A DMV hearing is an administrative proceeding that focuses solely on your driving privilege and the events surrounding your arrest. The DUI court case deals with whether you are innocent or guilty of DUI.
What will be discussed at your DMV hearing, for a DUI, depends on whether you took a chemical test or not:
- If you took a blood, breath, or urine test:
- Was your arrest lawful
- Were you driving a motor vehicle when you had a blood alcohol content of 0.08% or more
- Did the arresting officer have reasonable cause to believe you were driving a motor vehicle in violation of California DUI law
- If you did not take blood, breath, or urine test (because of failure or refusal):
- Did the arresting officer tell you that if you refused to submit to or failed to complete a test of your blood, breath, or urine, your driving privilege would be revoked or suspended for one year?
- Did you refuse to or fail to complete a blood, breath, or urine test after being requested to complete one by a peace officer?
- Did the arresting officer have reasonable cause to believe you were driving a motor vehicle in violation of California DUI law
You must attend all dates regarding your DUI court case. DMV hearings are not mandatory, but they must be requested within 10 days after your arrest.
NOTE: Remember, your DMV hearing and DUI court case are separate entities! They are not connected.
During your DUI court case you may request a restricted license from the judge, which at the judge’s discretion, may allow you to drive to and from your place of employment, school, and alcohol treatment facility.