Client Hits Parked Cars, BAC 0.14%, Win at DMV Hearing

Our client, age 25, was returning home after an evening with friends in Old Town Torrance at the Crest Sports Bar & Grill.  He enjoyed a few beers and decided to drive home.  It was only about 9:00 p.m., but our client was tired from long days at work at LAX.

As our client was heading northbound on Van Ness Avenue, he fell asleep while driving his 2013 Toyota Tacoma.  This took place near the intersection of Van Ness and 162nd Street, in Gardena.

He was abruptly awoken as he realized he had just hit a parked car and his truck rolled over to the left, completely rolling over to finally stop back on its wheels, like completing a barrel roll in a plane.

The Tacoma’s roof was crushed in and the front end of the car had significant damage, but remarkably, our client was uninjured.  He had been wearing his seatbelt.

The client drove his car over to the side of the street to get out of the street.  He parked his car along the curb and decided to just figure out what to do next. 

He got out of his car and decided to survey the damage to his truck, as well as the other cars.

Curiously, no one else seemed to notice what happened.  The street was quiet.  No one rushed out of their house to ask him if he was O.K.  Cars passed by like nothing happened. 

Just as our client was getting ready to knock on the door of the nearest house to provide his I.D. and insurance information to the owner of the car he hit (a gray Honda Accord), as well as the owner of a white Volkswagen Golf that was hit by the Accord being pushed forward by the first impact, the Torrance Police arrived at the scene. 

Apparently, someone had called to report the accident.

The police immediately asked our client if he was the driver of the Tacoma and our client answered he indeed was.  He also told the police that he had been drinking, but that he only had two beers.  Police asked our client to provide a breath sample in a preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) device, which our client did.  His breath alcohol content, which is supposed to be a reflection of one’s blood alcohol content (BAC), was measured at 0.113% and 0.123%.

Our client was then arrested and taken to the Torrance Police Station, where he provided a further breath sample on the device there, registering a 0.14% and 0.13% BAC.

Our client was then held several hours before being released the following morning after signing a promise to appear in the Torrance Superior Court for his arraignment in about three months.

The client and his mom then called Greg Hill & Associates.  The two quizzed Greg about a DUI and the DMV Hearing for about an hour over the phone, with the client’s mom asking most of the questions. 

The two had called several other attorneys already, but decided to hire Greg Hill & Associates, explaining that our fee was the lowest and Greg knew the most about DUI.

The first hearing was the DMV Hearing, which was conducted telephonically.

Greg noticed in the police report and the Age 21 and Older Officer Statement (also called the DS-367) that the police officer failed to fill out an answer to the question the officer is supposed to ask the suspect: “What time did you stop driving or how long after driving / collision did you wait for law enforcement to arrive?”  There was no answer.

Greg therefore objected at the DMV Hearing to the admission of the DS-367 and the police report on relevance grounds because without the time the suspect (our client) last drove, the DMV could not avail itself of presuming the measured BAC was the same as the suspect’s BAC when he last drove, as is provided under Vehicle Code § 23152(b) as long as the time of driving and the BAC measurement are within three hours of each other.

Greg pointed out that there was no circumstantial evidence that our client had driven within three hours of his breath test, as the officer failed to note if the hood of the car was warm to the touch, failed to include even a notation of when the 911 call was received by the Torrance Police Department and since the section of Van Ness Avenue was a residential street, it was not as if our client’s collision would be immediately noticed since he moved his car to the curbside and the other two cars remained parked in their original parking spots, or very close thereto.

The DMV agreed and sustained Greg’s objections to the two reports.  Such reports were therefore not admitted into evidence and the DMV had insufficient evidence to suspend our client’s driving privileges.

The suspension was therefore set aside, which made our client very happy.