Allende v. Department of the California Highway Patrol
134 Cal. Rptr. 3d 26
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- CHP appeals a judgment invalidating and enjoining enforcement of its policy to recover emergency response costs from DUI/driving under influence incidents.
- Allende I held an “incident” is any event proximately causing an emergency response; an ordinary DUI arrest at a traffic stop is not an incident.
- CHP amended its policy after Allende I to seek costs for DUI-related responses, removing the accident-only restriction.
- CHP guidance (HPM, COMNETs) directed cost recovery for DUI incidents, including some non-emergency dispatches.
- The trial court found the revised policy overbroad and improperly calculated officer salaries by including benefits and misallocating time; it entered injunctive relief accordingly.
- The court later reversed on review, holding CHP’s interpretation and cost calculation were consistent with 53150–53156 and SAM provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CHP’s broad incident definition exceeds 53150. | Allende I limits incidents to emergency responses; broad dispatch-based scope is invalid. | Policy focuses on incidents that required response; dispatch alone can indicate an emergency. | Policy not overbroad; consistent with statute and practice. |
| Whether CHP may include benefits in officer salary for 53156 costs. | Benefits are fixed costs not recoverable as salaries. | Benefits are direct personnel costs included in the hourly rate under SAM. | Benefits may be recovered as part of direct personnel costs under 53156. |
| Whether SAM 8752/8740 methodology applies to external cost recovery. | SAM method not applicable to external billing; use different formula. | SAM framework applies; CHP may follow SAM to determine rates. | SAM methodology is applicable; CHP may use SAM to determine hourly rates. |
| Whether the court should defer to CHP’s administrative interpretation. | Agency interpretation is not controlling and may be arbitrary. | Agency expertise warrants deference when reasonable and workable. | Deference due; CHP interpretation is reasonable and workable. |
| Whether the policy complies with 53156’s requirement to include only costs directly arising from the incident. | CHP’s approach includes broader costs not directly arising from the incident. | Costs included are direct costs arising from the emergency response; indirect costs are excluded. | Policy complies with 53156’s direct-cost requirement. |
Key Cases Cited
- California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court, 135 Cal.App.4th 488 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (Allende I; defines ‘incident’ and includes enforcement costs at scene)
- McGraw v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 165 Cal.App.3d 490 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (agency interpretations entitled to weight when enforcing statutes)
- Sharon S. v. Superior Court, 31 Cal.4th 417 (Cal. 2003) (deference to administrative interpretations; factors for weighing agency expertise)
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization, 19 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998) (administrative interpretation and agency expertise given weight)