California’s DUI laws can be complex and confusing. In this section, our attorneys break down the rules and explain the process.
24/7 Help:
(855) 999-7755
What is the Burden of Proof at a DMV Hearing?
Posted on
The burden of proof at a California DMV hearing is “by a preponderance of the evidence.” A preponderance of the evidence means that it is more likely than not that a person committed the violation. By contrast, prosecutors in court must prove that an accused violated a DUI law “beyond a reasonable doubt” in order to successfully secure a conviction.
A DMV DUI hearing is an administrative hearing held at a DMV office (not a criminal court). A hearing officer presides over the hearing and determines the sole issue of whether or not a person’s driver’s license will be suspended as a result of having been arrested for DUI.
A driver subject to a DMV hearing can try to retain his/her license by presenting evidence that:
- he/she was not driving a motor vehicle,
- the motorist was arrested at an illegal DUI/driver’s license checkpoint,
- the officer did not have probable cause to detain the motorist for DUI,
- the breath testing instrument used after the DUI arrest was not calibrated or was not working properly, and/or
- there were fatal flaws with the arresting officer’s paperwork.
What burden of proof does a DMV hearing officer follow?
At a Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) DUI hearing, the DMV hearing officer must find “by a preponderance of the evidence” that the person (subject to the hearing) either operated a motor vehicle with an illegal BAC or while impaired by drugs or alcohol.
“A preponderance of the evidence” is evidence that shows that it is more likely than not that a fact is true. “More likely than not” means that it is more than 50 percent likely that a fact is true. 1
In criminal cases, prosecutors have the burden to prove a violation of a DUI law beyond a reasonable doubt. This is much higher than “by a preponderance of the evidence” in DMV hearings.
A lower standard applies in DMV hearings because they are only civil proceedings as opposed to criminal proceedings. Therefore, it is possible for a person to lose a DMV hearing but win a DUI criminal trial.
What does a DMV hearing officer determine at the hearing?
A hearing officer, and not a judge, presides over a DMV DUI hearing. In the course of the hearing, the officer determines whether or not the DMV shall suspend a person’s driver’s license because of a DUI arrest.2
Hearing officers can decide to suspend a motorist’s license if they find that:
- the DUI stop and the arrest for the crime were legal, and
- the driver operated his/her car with a BAC of.08% or greater, or the driver refused a blood or breath test.
Note that a DMV hearing is a separate and distinct matter from a court proceeding for an alleged DUI crime.
If a person is arrested for DUI in California, the driver will face two separate legal proceedings:
- a court proceeding for the DUI in California courts, and
- a DMV DUI hearing.
As stated above, the DMV hearing is held to determine if the Department will suspend a person’s driving privileges.
In court, however, a judge or jury determines whether or not the defendant driver, arrested for DUI, is actually guilty of the offense. If a driver is found guilty, then he/she could be punished with a driver’s license suspension. The court, though, can also impose any of the following penalties (for a first time misdemeanor DUI):
- 3 to 5 years of informal misdemeanor probation (typically 3 years),3
- DUI school ranging from 3 to 9 months (typically 3 months),4
- fines and penalty assessments totaling between $1,500 and $2,000 (depending on the county),5
- a 6-month driver’s license suspension,6
- installation of an ignition interlock device (IID) for six months (unless the defendant chooses not to drive),
- up to 6 months in jail (depending on the county),
- in some counties, work release, and
- attending a victim impact panel.
How Can a Person Win at a DMV hearing?
Drivers can try to win a DMV hearing, and thereby retain their driver’s license, by raising a legal defense.
Some common defenses used in these hearings include people showing that:
- they were not driving a motor vehicle,
- the arresting officer did not have probable cause for an arrest,
- the breath testing instrument used in the case was not calibrated or was not working properly, and/or
- there were fatal flaws with the arresting officer’s paperwork.
Any of the above defenses will work if the driver can prove them by a preponderance of the evidence. Drivers can try to satisfy this standard via witness testimony, physical evidence, or documentary evidence.
Legal References:
- Coffey v. Shiomoto (2015) 60 Cal. 4th 1198.
- California DMV website, “Administrative Hearings.”
- California Vehicle Code 23600(b)(1) VC.
- California Vehicle Code 23538 (b) VC.
- California Vehicle Code 23536(a) VC.
- California Vehicle Code 13552(a)(1)(A) VC. See also California Senate Bill 1046 (2018).
About the Author
Neil Shouse
A former Los Angeles prosecutor, attorney Neil Shouse graduated with honors from UC Berkeley and Harvard Law School (and completed additional graduate studies at MIT). He has been featured on CNN, Good Morning America, Dr Phil, Court TV, The Today Show and Court TV. Mr Shouse has been recognized by the National Trial Lawyers as one of the Top 100 Criminal and Top 100 Civil Attorneys.
Useful information Blog Posts:
The difference between Penal Code 273.5 PC and Penal Code 243(e)(1) PC rests on whether the domestic violence victim suffered a physical injury. Section 273.5 covers domestic violence that causes corporal injury. Section 243(e)(1) applies to domestic violence that does not cause an injury. Because 273.5 PC involves more serious conduct, the penalties of a ...
In California, the minimum depth for tire treads is 1/32nd of an inch on any two adjacent grooves. For major grooves, the minimum depth is 4/32nd of an inch for tires on the vehicle’s steering axle, and 2/32nd of an inch for all other tires. Driving on tires with shallower tread can be ticketed under ...
Victims who have been hurt on a rental property can sue the property owner, the tenant, any company that maintains the property, and any employee whose negligence contributed to the accident. Suing multiple defendants is common. Depending on the case, though, some of these parties will be unlikely to fully compensate the victim for his ...