Haberman v. Shiomoto
Plaintiff Randall J. Haberman appeals from a trial court judgment denying his mandamus petition challenging Department of Motor Vehicles’ (DMV) suspension of his driving privilege under the “administrative per se†statutes ( ADDIN BA xc <@st> xl 28 s CNNWRV000001 xpl 1 l "Veh. Code, § 13353.2 et seq." Veh. Code, § 13353.2 et seq.)[1] for driving with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration (BAC). He contends the trial court erred in denying his petition for writ of mandate because (1) he was not lawfully arrested, a prerequisite for administrative license suspension, and (2) he “could not reasonably have been found to have been driving with a prohibited BAC because both elements were not concurrently established.†We shall conclude that Haberman’s arrest was lawful, and that there is ample evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion he drove with a BAC of 0.08 percent or higher. Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment.
Comments on Haberman v. Shiomoto