White v. Department of Motor Vehicles
126 Cal. Rptr. 3d 774
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- CHP stopped Linda White at night for headlamps out; signs of intoxication observed and she was arrested.
- Admonition explained she must submit to a chemical test with option of breath or blood.
- White chose the blood test and was taken to the 77th Street station because CHP office could administer only there.
- Blood test attempts failed; technician could not obtain blood after multiple tries and left the room.
- After unsuccessful blood test, officer offered breath test again; White refused both in the field and at the station.
- DMV suspended White’s license for one year after an administrative hearing; trial court denied mandamus; appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did White's selection of blood test followed by an unusable blood draw constitute a refusal? | White argues the blood test was frustrated by technician ineptness and she should not be deemed to have refused. | Officer properly invoked implied consent; after blood test failure, only feasible test was breath, which White refused. | Yes, there was a refusal under the statute. |
| Is the officer's discretion to determine test feasibility governed by Smith v. DMV standard? | Smith supports considering feasibility of administering a test other than the chosen one. | Smith supports officer discretion; here only feasible test after blood attempt was breath. | Officer's discretion upheld; breath test was the feasible test. |
| Does the implied consent purpose of public safety support upholding the suspension when the chosen test cannot be completed? | Inability to complete blood test should not automatically suspend for choosing blood. | Implied consent served by offering breath and warning; refusal leads to suspension to protect safety. | No error; suspension proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 179 Cal.App.3d 368 (Cal. App. Dist. 1986) (reasonable discretion to determine feasibility of tests)
- Ross v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 219 Cal.App.3d 398 (Cal. App. Dist. 1990) (discussion of implied consent and test feasibility)
- Wegner v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 271 Cal.App.2d 838 (Cal. App. Dist. 1969) (implied consent interpretations relevant to feasibility)
- Hernandez v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 30 Cal.3d 70 (Cal. Supreme Court 1981) (implied consent as public safety measure)
- Berlinghieri v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 33 Cal.3d 392 (Cal. Supreme Court 1983) (trial court's independent judgment on DMV findings)
- Robertson v. Zolin, 44 Cal.App.4th 147 (Cal. App. Dist. 1996) (substantial evidence standard for appellate review)
- Garcia v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 185 Cal.App.4th 73 (Cal. App. Dist. 2010) (affirming DMV decisions under implied consent law)