Coffey v. Shiomoto
60 Cal. 4th 1198
| Cal. | 2015Background
- At 1:32 a.m. Sergeant Martin stopped Ashley Jourdan Coffey for erratic driving; officers observed red eyes, strong alcohol odor, and poor performance on standardized field sobriety tests (HGN, walk-and-turn, one-leg stand, Romberg).
- Coffey was arrested, submitted to breath tests at 2:28 and 2:31 a.m. (0.08% and 0.09%), then blood draws at 2:55 a.m. (0.095% and 0.096%); DMV suspended her license under the administrative per se law (§ 13382).
- Coffey pleaded to a lesser criminal charge but requested an administrative hearing to challenge the license suspension; she presented forensic toxicologist Jay Williams, who opined Coffey’s BAC was rising and likely below 0.08% when driving.
- The DMV hearing officer and later the trial court discredited Williams’s rising-BAC theory, relied on the chemical tests plus circumstantial evidence (appearance, odor, driving, field tests), and sustained the suspension.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed; the Supreme Court granted review to decide whether non-chemical circumstantial evidence may be considered to establish a driver’s BAC at the time of driving.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statutory rebuttable presumption in Veh. Code §23152(b) applies and was rebutted | Coffey: Expert Williams’ testimony showing BAC was rising within three hours rebutted the presumption | DMV: Williams’s opinion was speculative and insufficient to rebut; presumption remains | The presumption (if applicable) can be rebutted by evidence that would support a finding of nonexistence; Williams’s testimony, if believed, rebutted it, requiring DMV to prove BAC at driving time without relying on the presumption |
| Whether non-chemical circumstantial evidence of intoxication is admissible to establish BAC at time of driving | Coffey: Behavioral evidence is unreliable to prove a precise BAC and cannot by itself establish BAC ≥0.08% | DMV: Observations (driving, odor, field tests) are relevant to corroborate chemical results or refute rising-BAC defense | Non-chemical circumstantial evidence is relevant and admissible to bolster or rebut interpretations of chemical tests; hearing officer did not abuse discretion in relying on it |
| Whether the hearing officer abused discretion by rejecting expert and crediting officer observations | Coffey: Hearing officer improperly discounted expert without sufficient basis; due process violated by officer not testifying | DMV: Hearing officer reasonably found expert speculative and credited officer reports | Court held the hearing officer/trial court acted within discretion; substantial evidence supported suspension; Coffey forfeited due process claim by not objecting at hearing |
| Whether prior appellate decisions (e.g., Brenner) bar using circumstantial evidence to corroborate chemical tests | Coffey: Brenner suggests officer impressions can’t establish precise BAC and cautions reliance on non-chemical evidence | DMV: Burg, McKinney, Fuenning support admitting circumstantial evidence to connect test results to driving time | Supreme Court affirms admission and disapproves any broad rule in Brenner that would categorically exclude such circumstantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Burg v. Municipal Court, 35 Cal.3d 257 (Cal. 1983) (circumstantial evidence, including driving and sobriety performance, may be used to establish BAC at time of driving)
- Lake v. Reed, 16 Cal.4th 448 (Cal. 1997) (explaining purposes and procedure of administrative per se license suspensions)
- Fuenning v. Superior Court, 139 Ariz. 590 (Ariz. 1983) (behavioral and sobriety evidence is relevant to assess whether later chemical tests reflect BAC at time of driving)
- McKinney v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 5 Cal.App.4th 519 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (administrative per se proceedings may admit circumstantial evidence besides chemical tests)
- Brenner v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 189 Cal.App.4th 365 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (distinguished; cannot be read to categorically bar circumstantial evidence that corroborates valid chemical tests)