People v. Oh CA4/3
G051291
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 4, 2016Background
- Sangjin Miller Oh, former Buena Park mayor, was convicted by a jury of five counts of perjury and placed on three years’ formal probation; the DMV’s inability to cross-reference different names/DOB/SSNs was central to the statute‑of‑limitations dispute.
- DMV investigator Francisco Paredes discovered Oh had two California driver’s licenses with different names, birthdates, and SSNs; Oh admitted to using a second license and a different SSN to avoid child support and to register vehicles using the second license.
- Orange County investigator Stanley Berry and investigators from SSA and DMV obtained records from various agencies (some via informal requests) that revealed the dual‑license issue; defendant sought suppression of those records and derivative evidence as privacy/statutory violations.
- Defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained from CALPERS, the City Clerk, USCIS, SSA, and other agencies, and moved to dismiss for outrageous government conduct; the trial court denied both motions.
- Defense argued DMV had constructive knowledge of the duplicate license as early as 2004 (tolling the statute of limitations), and challenged sufficiency of evidence for perjury counts based on vehicle registration forms; the trial court denied the §1118.1 motion and the jury convicted within the limitations period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to suppress records (Fourth Amendment) | Records voluntarily conveyed to government agencies; no reasonable privacy expectation | Informal agency disclosures and violations of privacy statutes require suppression | Denied — no legitimate Fourth Amendment privacy interest in records voluntarily given to government agencies (Miller governs) |
| Motion to dismiss for outrageous government conduct | Agency staff merely requested records; conduct not conscience‑shocking | Statutory/privacy violations by investigators amount to outrageous conduct warranting dismissal | Denied — conduct was procedural/technical, not conscience‑shocking (Rochin standard) |
| §1118.1 motion / statute of limitations tolling | DMV had constructive knowledge by 2004; sufficient indicia (replacement delay) to trigger limitations | DMV lacked ability to detect multiple licenses using different names/DOB/SSNs until Dec 2010 | Denied — substantial evidence DMV lacked means to discover the second license earlier; prosecution timely |
| Sufficiency of evidence for perjury on vehicle registration forms | Registrations contained attestations that info was "true and correct"; Oh admitted knowingly providing false info | Forms did not explicitly ask for disclosure of an alternate license | Affirmed — circumstantial evidence and admissions support perjury convictions for signing false "true and correct" statements |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (no Fourth Amendment privacy expectation in business/third‑party records)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (exclusionary rule for unlawful searches and seizures)
- Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (due process violation requires conscience‑shocking government conduct)
- United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741 (evidence obtained in violation of agency regulations not automatically excluded)
- Sanchez‑Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331 (exclusionary rule applied sparingly; social costs considered)
- Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 (government conduct must be brutal/offensive to violate substantive due process)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)