Najera v. Shiomoto
241 Cal. App. 4th 173
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- On Nov. 25, 2012 Najera crashed a motorcycle; officers observed signs of intoxication and arrested him. He refused a breath test and a blood draw at 9:05 p.m. showed BAC 0.19%.
- DMV served a suspension notice and upheld suspension after an administrative hearing; hearing officer relied on official blood test records and rejected Najera’s expert challenges.
- Najera’s expert, Janine Arvizu, testified the blood tube was underfilled (6 ml vs. 10 ml), risking vacuum leakage, contamination, and fermentation that could elevate BAC.
- Arvizu also testified the Kern County lab reported results from only one column of its dual-column gas chromatograph; she explained scientific consensus and manufacturers’ instructions require confirmation from a second column to validly identify/quantify ethanol.
- Arvizu further criticized the lab’s sparse quality-control blanks (e.g., 54 unknowns between blanks), increasing risk of undetected contamination.
- The superior court found Arvizu’s uncontradicted testimony rebutted the presumption of validity and ordered the suspension set aside; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Najera rebutted the presumption that the reported BAC was reliable | Arvizu showed the lab used only one column and underfilled tubes, so results were scientifically unreliable | DMV: regulations don’t require dual-column reporting; official records presumptively valid and Najera failed to present second-column data | Najera’s expert testimony was substantial evidence rebutting presumption; burden shifted to DMV, which offered no rebuttal; reversal affirmed |
| Whether regulations preclude challenging test validity when method is approved | Najera: challenges focused on improper use of an approved method, not on the method itself | DMV: title 17 approvals should insulate reported results from such attacks (citing breath-test precedents) | Court: blood-testing regs set performance standards (not device approvals); driver may show method was used incorrectly despite general approval |
| Whether court must presume Dept. of Health Services approved single-column reporting | Najera: no such presumption; lab not presumed to have performed method correctly in each case | DMV: Evid. Code presumption + lab filings imply DHS approval of procedures, so expert attack should be precluded | Court: cannot presume DHS authorized ignoring second-column data; would negate driver's right to show improper performance |
| Whether Najera had obligation to obtain/present second-column/raw data | Najera: expert testimony shifted burden to DMV to produce or rebut second-column data | DMV: Najera could have subpoenaed/enforced production or retested sample | Court: once Najera shifted burden, DMV was required to produce rebuttal; failure to do so supports reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Lake v. Reed, 16 Cal.4th 448 (independent judicial review of agency record in writ proceedings)
- Manriquez v. Gourley, 105 Cal.App.4th 1227 (DMV’s initial burden and driver’s ability to rebut chemical test)
- Shannon v. Gourley, 103 Cal.App.4th 60 (official test records create a presumptive showing of BAC)
- Imachi v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 2 Cal.App.4th 809 (driver must demonstrate improper test performance to shift burden)
- Borger v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 192 Cal.App.4th 1118 (limits on attacking approved breath-device types)
- People v. Vangelder, 58 Cal.4th 1 (challenges to reliability of approved testing devices must meet certain standards)