Freitas v. Shiomoto CA5
3 Cal. App. 5th 294
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- On July 13, 2013 CHP arrested Joseph Freitas for DUI after observed speeding, weaving, failure to stop, unsteady gait, slurred speech, smell of alcohol, and admissions of drinking. Two blood samples drawn at 10:54 p.m. tested by Kern Regional Crime Laboratory and reported BAC 0.23%.
- DMV suspended Freitas’s license and upheld the suspension after an administrative hearing; the hearing officer rejected defense expert testimony that the lab relied on single-column gas chromatography data.
- Defense expert Janine Arvizu testified (unrebutted) that single-column gas chromatography cannot reliably identify or quantify ethanol because many volatile compounds share the same retention time; valid BAC determination requires confirmation by a second column.
- The trial court denied Freitas’s petition for writ of mandate, reasoning the presumption of regulatory compliance and lack of proof of calibration/maintenance or actual BAC below 0.08% meant Arvizu’s testimony failed to rebut the DMV’s prima facie case.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding Arvizu’s unrebutted testimony was sufficient to rebut the regulatory-compliance presumption because it attacked the scientific validity of the lab’s methodology (use of only one column), shifting the burden back to the DMV, which presented no rebuttal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony that lab used only one GC column rebuts presumption that test method was "capable" and thus invalidates reported BAC | Freitas: single-column GC is scientifically incapable of reliably identifying/quantifying ethanol; this rebuts the presumption and shifts burden to DMV | DMV: presumption of regulatory compliance requires proof of maintenance/calibration or actual lower BAC; single-column data may still be valid or reviewed by lab | Held: Arvizu’s unrebutted testimony rebutted the presumption; single-column methodology was not capable and DMV failed to rebut |
| Whether driver must show machine malfunction, calibration records, or actual BAC to rebut DMV’s prima facie case | Freitas: no — may rebut by showing apparatus was improperly employed or data used in scientifically invalid manner | DMV: yes — driver needed calibration/maintenance evidence or independent BAC testing to rebut | Held: No; improper employment/invalid methodology suffices to rebut without calibration proofs or actual-BAC evidence |
| Whether behavioral evidence can corroborate single-column result to reach 0.08% finding | Freitas: behavioral evidence alone cannot validate a result produced by an intrinsically invalid method | DMV: singular-column result is at least some evidence that, combined with impairment signs, supports 0.08% finding | Held: Behavioral evidence cannot cure an invalid chemical methodology; single-column result cannot fill the gap |
| Whether Coffey (breath/blood corroboration) controls here | Freitas: Coffey is distinguishable because it did not attack the intrinsic validity of the test method | DMV: Coffey allows consideration of test results plus behavioral evidence even if expert rebuts presumption | Held: Coffey distinguishable; here expert attacked methodology itself, so Coffey does not save DMV’s case |
Key Cases Cited
- Najera v. Shiomoto, 241 Cal.App.4th 173 (expert testimony that single-column GC is invalid rebuts presumption of regulatory compliance)
- Coffey v. Shiomoto, 60 Cal.4th 1198 (chemical-test evidence may be considered with behavioral evidence where test methodology not intrinsically attacked)
- Lake v. Reed, 16 Cal.4th 448 (trial court applies independent judgment on administrative writ review; appellate review of factual findings for substantial evidence)
- People v. Vangelder, 58 Cal.4th 1 (driver may show machine malfunction or improper calibration to rebut test results)