Kirschenmann v. Shiomoto
Jeffrey Scott Kirschenmann appeals from an order denying the writ of mandate he filed in the trial court, which sought to preclude enforcement of an order issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) suspending his driving privilege after he was arrested for driving with a blood-alcohol content in excess of 0.08 percent, in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (b).[1]
Kirschenmann’s primary argument is that there was insufficient evidence to identify him as the driver of the vehicle. The basis for this argument is an assumption that identity can be established only by eyewitness testimony. As we shall explain, the circumstantial evidence in the record adequately identified Kirschenmann as the driver of the vehicle.
Kirschenmann also argues that omissions in the forms prepared by the arresting officer violated section 13380, thus precluding suspension of his driving privilege. There is no merit to this argument either, and we shall affirm the order denying his petition.
Comments on Kirschenmann v. Shiomoto