Yochheim v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles CA3

Filed 10/12/22 Yochheim v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Amador) ----

TASH YOCHHEIM, C094902

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 20CVC11775)

v.

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES,

Defendant and Respondent.

The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) suspended appellant Tash Yochheim’s driver’s license for driving with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.01 percent or greater while under 21 years old. Yochheim challenged the suspension via a petition for writ of mandate. The trial court denied Yochheim’s petition, concluding evidence in the administrative record supported the DMV’s determination. On appeal, Yochheim contends: (1) the DMV’s decision to suspend his license depended on the improper consideration of hearsay evidence, without which his detention was unlawful; and

1

(2) because the DMV could not demonstrate his lawful detention, we must overturn the suspension. We affirm. BACKGROUND Around 2:00 a.m., a California Highway Patrol (CHP) officer was dispatched to reports of a possible traffic collision involving multiple suspects and vehicles in Amador County. Dispatch further advised that one of the callers sounded intoxicated. While driving to the scene, the CHP officer learned that a local sheriff deputy had already detained a possible driver. When the CHP officer arrived about 18 minutes after being dispatched, the sheriff deputy told him: (1) he had spoken to occupants of one of the vehicles, a Mazda, involved in the traffic incident, and they described the driver of the other vehicle, a Chevy, to the sheriff deputy; and (2) he later saw a man matching that description (Yochheim) return to the scene as a passenger in the Chevy. The sheriff deputy detained Yochheim, and waited for CHP to arrive. While the CHP officer investigated the possible traffic collision, a person who was in the Mazda at the time of the incident showed him cell phone video of Yochheim driving away from the scene. When the CHP officer spoke to Yochheim, Yocheim was seated inside the sheriff deputy’s patrol vehicle and was emitting “the strong odor of an alcoholic beverage.” Yochheim admitted he drove the Chevy and had one beer before the traffic incident. Though the CHP officer ultimately concluded no traffic collision happened, he arrested Yochheim at 4:25 a.m. for driving under the influence of alcohol. A breath test at the scene indicated Yochheim’s blood-alcohol content was 0.11 percent. The DMV suspended Yochheim’s driver’s license after an administrative hearing. At the hearing, Yochheim’s counsel objected to “all hearsay contained within” two exhibits admitted into evidence: (1) the CHP officer’s “Under Age 21 Officer’s Statement” signed under penalty of perjury on the date of the incident, and (2) the CHP