Reed v. Department of Motor Vehicles

California Court of Appeal Nov 15, 1979 No. Civ. 56049Published

Before: Hastings

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not apply to the municipal court's informal evidentiary ruling regarding the driver's refusal to take a chemical test, as the ruling was unnecessary to the judgment and not binding on the parties.

Issues

Whether the trial court erroneously applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel to prevent the DMV from finding that the driver refused a chemical test.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The criterion to use in determining whether a finding creates collateral estoppel is: Was the finding necessary to the judgment? If it was unnecessary, there is no collateral estoppel.”

“we do not believe the doctrine encompasses an informal evidentiary ruling, not binding on the judge or parties”

Opinion

HASTINGS, J.

The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) appeals from a judgment granting a writ of mandate in ordering DMV to reverse its decision suspending Roderick Lyle Reed, Jr.’s (Reed) driving privilege under Vehicle Code section 13353, subdivision (b). The section provides that if a person refuses an officer’s request to submit to, or

fails to complete, a chemical test,

DMV, upon receipt of the officer’s sworn statement that he had reasonable cause to believe such person had been driving a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor, shall suspend his privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of six months.

Officer Eaton arrested Reed and asked him if he would take a blood test. Reed said he wanted to take a blood test and he was taken to Pa

[664]

cific Hospitar for that purpose. At the hospital Reed read a hospital form and stated that he was unable to take a blood test because he had hemophilia.

He was then taken to the Long Beach Police Department and on the way to the station Officer Eaton read the implied consent admonition to him from the arrest investigation report.

Reed stated that he would take the breath test. As the test started he was informed that he had to continually blow into the machine until the bag was blown up and the whistle sounded. Reed blew the bag full but did not blow enough air to sound the whistle and was told that this attempt was not adequate. He tried two or three more times but on each occasion was able to fill the bag only two-thirds full and the whistle did not sound. He then explained that he had emphysema and was incapable of completing the breath test.

He was then asked to take the urine test and he agreed. He gave the first or voiding sample of the urine test. About 25 to 30 minutes later, he was asked to provide the second sample in order to complete the test but he was unable to comply. He was given about five minutes to produce the sample which he was unable to do and he was then taken back to the booking area. He was advised that he would lose his driving privilege if he did not take the test and Reed answered that that would depend upon the department hearing officer.

Reed v. Department of Motor Vehicles

AI Brief

HASTINGS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief