DMV RE: DUI. Please Read Question Below !

Generally speaking, if an officer performed Field sobriety tests (and what sounds like all the field sobriety tests, since the last test was done at the station), then that police officers name should be in the report as the one who conducted the test. Sometimes there will be a different arresting officer, but the police report should correctly identify which officer performed the field sobriety tests. Was the officer subpoena'd and questioned at the DMV hearing? Basically, if the police report is falsified, then it is untrustworthy and should not overcome hearsay objections. In which case the officer should have to testify so you can cross examine the officer. I am not sure exactly what happened at your hearing, but you may want to talk to an attorney in your area in more detail to see if it is worth appealing.

Generally speaking, if an officer performed Field sobriety tests (and what sounds like all the field sobriety tests, since the last test was done at the station), then that police officers name should be in the report as the one who conducted the test at a minimum. Was there anything written at all about the field sobriety tests performed prior to your arrest? If there was no evidence of field sobriety tests submitted, then there is a good argument (potentially) that the arrest was not lawfully made. Sometimes there will be a different arresting officer, but the police report should correctly identify which officer performed the field sobriety tests. Was the officer subpoena'd and questioned at the DMV hearing? Basically, if the police report is falsified, then it is untrustworthy and should not overcome hearsay objections. In which case the officer should have to testify so you can cross examine the officer. I am not sure exactly what happened at your hearing, but you may want to talk to an attorney in your area in more detail to see if it is worth appealing. Hope that helps. Phil Hache www.1DUILawyer.com

This is a very good question. Without reading the report myself, it's hard to give you an answer for sure. But, my gut instinct is that this is not a valid reason for appeal. The officer who conducted the investigation can be a separate officer than the one who gives you the Title 17 chemical test. The DMV officer does not necessarily need the name of the investigating officer because the arresting/testing officer can rely on the observations of the investigating officer. The investigating officer may have written a separate report that can be obtained through the arresting agency. It's important that when you are facing a DUI, you hire a competent DUI defense attorney. A DUI is a serious (and expensive) charge in California; it is not the kind of charge you should face alone. www.cassandrahearn.com The above information does not contain legal advice. No attorney-client relationship exists.

I agree with Cassandra's answer. Generally, the name of the first officer wouldn't be that important for your DMV hearing. However, what you should make sure of is that the officer who performed the final test on the police station is the one who signed whatever results came out. It's a technicality, but if someone other than who administered that test signed the paper, that would be grounds for appeal.

Many attorneys consider DMV Administrative Per Se hearings to be a kangaroo court, so it is unsurprising if you feel you got a raw deal. After a DUI arrest, the DMV (only when a hearing is timely requested) must prove whether the arrested individual was driving a vehicle, was legally stopped, and at the time of driving was a .08 BAC or higher, all by a "preponderance of the evidence standard", which falls fall short of the burden of proof in the criminal case. The DMV can even meet this burden of proof at the administrative hearing through hearsay, and often the DMV calls no witnesses at all, and relies only on the sworn officer statements it receives. Some inconsistencies are simply ignored by the hearing officer, and you do not have the same rights to confront the witnesses against you that you do in the criminal case, if filed. If you went into the hearing alone, you may not have been prepared, especially if you didn't subpoena any witnesses on your behalf. In cases where there are some questions about the probable cause for the arrest, questions about the timing of the breath or blood tests, problems with the report or other questions, the Hearing Officer may call an officer in to clarify the record. If you didn't have an attorney, you may well have missed your chance to subpoena the correct people to the hearing, and to set forth an adequate record for an administrative appeal or a writ of mandate, etc. I recommend that you speak soon to an experienced DUI attorney in your area (you have limited time to appeal) to see whether you have any grounds for an administrative review (not a high likelihood of success at that level) or through the civil appeal process (a writ can be expensive, but more effective). The California DUI Lawyers Association (Google it) can help you find someone qualified near you. Good luck.

I can only tell you that it could be. But without seeing your complete file, we're only left to guess. If you are serious about this, make an appointment with an experienced DUI defense attorney in San Diego. Best, Jason Beahm Beahm Law San Francisco, CA