Burnstine v. Department of Motor Vehicles

California Court of Appeal Dec 9, 1996 No. G017198Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The Department of Motor Vehicles has no mandatory duty to reinstate a driver's license suspended under Vehicle Code section 13353 based on a subsequent judicial finding of factual innocence regarding a criminal charge of willful refusal to take a chemical test.

Issues

Does the DMV have a mandatory duty to reinstate a license suspended under Vehicle Code section 13353 if the driver is later found factually innocent of willfully refusing a chemical test?
Does the disparate treatment of drivers acquitted of DUI versus those found factually innocent of refusal violate equal protection?

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Does the DMV have a mandatory duty to reinstate a person’s driver’s license suspended pursuant to Vehicle Code section 13353 if that person is later found factually innocent of a criminal charge of willfully refusing to take a chemical test?”

“The answer is no.”

“Because the different policy decisions are rationally related to the goals of the specific statutes, we conclude the DMV was not required to reinstate Bumstine’s driver’s license.”

[1430]

Opinion

THE COURT.

John Mitchell Burnstine was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. According to the officer’s statement, when Bumstine was asked to take a blood, breath, or urine test, he refused: “[Driver] Burnstine very uncooperative in answering questions. Chem[ical] test admonition] read twice. [Driver] Burnstine interrupted and changed subjects repeatedly. When asked which test he wanted to take [driver] Burnstine shrugged shoulders and refused to answer.” Based on the officer’s statement, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) issued an administrative per se order suspending Bumstine’s driver’s license. (Veh. Code, § 13353.) Burnstine requested a departmental review of the suspension. The administrative order was upheld and Burnstine never contested it.

Meanwhile, a criminal complaint was filed alleging Burnstine had been driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (a). The complaint further alleged Burnstine willfully refused to complete a blood, breath, or urine test. Following a jury trial, a mistrial was declared (the vote was 10-2 for acquittal). Burnstine then pled guilty to a charge of resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 148), and all other charges were dismissed. Several months later, and on Bumstine’s motion, the municipal court entered an order of “factual innocence” pursuant to Penal Code section 851.8. Based on this order, Burnstine demanded that the DMV reinstate his license. When the DMV refused, he filed a petition for writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, which the superior court granted.

Although the parties express the issue in different ways, fundamentally the question is: Does the DMV have a mandatory duty to reinstate a person’s driver’s license suspended pursuant to Vehicle Code section 13353 if that person is later found factually innocent of a criminal charge of willfully refusing to take a chemical test? The answer is no.

Unlike Vehicle Code section 13353.2 (which governs the suspensions of drivers’ licenses for driving with a blood-alcohol concentration of .08 percent or more),

Burnstine v. Department of Motor Vehicles

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief