Espinoza v. Shiomoto

Decision Date24 March 2017
Docket NumberE064252
Citation215 Cal.Rptr.3d 807,10 Cal.App.5th 85
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
Parties Bernice ESPINOZA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Jean SHIOMOTO, as Director, etc., Defendant and Respondent.

Bartell & Hensel, Donald J. Bartelland Lara J. Gressley, Riverside, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Burglin Law Offices and Paul R. Burglin, Mill Valley, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Chris A. Knudsen, Assistant Attorney General, Gary S. Balekjian, Jennie M. Kelly, Bruce Reynolds and Brad Parr, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent.

OPINION

McKINSTER J.

I.INTRODUCTION

Bernice Espinoza appeals from the denial of her petition for writ of administrative mandate challenging the one-year suspension of her driver's license by the Department of Motor Vehicles (Department). We conclude the record supports the trial court's implied findings that (1) Espinoza was lawfully arrested on reasonable cause to believe she had been driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), (2) Espinoza refused to submit to and failed to complete a chemical test as required under the implied consent law, and (3) Espinoza was afforded a fair hearing before the Department. Therefore, we conclude the superior court correctly denied Espinoza's petition, and we affirm the judgment.

II.FACTS
A. Investigation and Arrest.

At 1:40 a.m., on May 15, 2013, Sergeant Temple of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) was on routine patrol in the City of Riverside when he observed Espinoza driving a grey Hyundai and holding a cellular phone to the left side of her face. Espinoza appeared to be in the middle of a conversation, but when Espinoza saw Temple she lowered the phone from her ear. Temple activated his emergency lights, and Espinoza pulled over and stopped approximately two feet from the curb.

Temple approached and contacted Espinoza through her open driver's side window. Temple informed Espinoza that he had stopped her for talking on her phone while driving and asked for her driver's license. Espinoza handed Temple her driver's license and apologized for using her cellular phone while driving. While speaking to Espinoza, Temple smelled a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from the interior of Espinoza's vehicle. Temple asked Espinoza where she was coming from, and Espinoza responded she had been at a local bar. When Temple asked Espinoza if she had been drinking, Espinoza said she drank one cocktail but had not had anything else to drink for two hours. Espinoza's speech appeared to be normal.

Temple asked Espinoza to step out of her vehicle, but Espinoza declined to cooperate. Espinoza informed Temple that she was a public defender; that she did not wish to perform any field sobriety tests or to step out of her vehicle; and citing McNeely ,1 a recently decided United States Supreme Court case, Espinoza said she would not submit to a blood test. When Temple again asked Espinoza to step out of her vehicle, Espinoza once again declined. Espinoza asked Temple to issue her a citation for the cellular phone violation (see Veh. Code,2 § 23123, subd. (a) ), and said she would call a friend to come pick her up and take her home.

As Temple requested an additional officer to respond and conduct a DUI investigation,3 Espinoza stepped out of her vehicle. Espinoza again informed Temple that she would not perform any field sobriety tests. While standing on the sidewalk, Espinoza crossed her legs, lost her balance, and stumbled a bit. As Espinoza spoke, Temple smelled a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on Espinoza's breath. Temple also saw that Espinoza's eyes were red.

Officer Gonzalez of the CHP then arrived on the scene. Temple told Gonzalez what he had observed, identified Espinoza, and directed Gonzalez to conduct a DUI investigation. When Gonzalez walked up to Espinoza, he immediately smelled a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on Espinoza's person and on her breath. Gonzalez also saw that Espinoza had red, bloodshot, and watery eyes. Espinoza was standing normally, and she was not swaying or moving about. Gonzalez asked Espinoza if she had been drinking, and Espinoza replied she had a drink two hours earlier. Espinoza then told Gonzalez that she was a Riverside County public defender and knew her rights; that she did not want to have any problems with her work; that Gonzalez should not ask her any field sobriety questions because she would not answer them and would not perform any field sobriety tests; and again cited McNeely .

As she did with Temple, Espinoza asked that Gonzalez issue her a citation for the cellular phone violation and said she would have a friend come and pick her up. Espinoza began to look at her cellular phone, and she fumbled and dropped her keys. As she spoke, Espinoza repeated herself several times within a short period of time that she would rather be issued a citation and have a friend come pick her up. Espinoza did not slur her speech and she was coherent, but she was crying and very emotional the whole time Gonzalez spoke to her. Gonzalez did not detect any mental impairment

while talking to Espinoza. Gonzalez asked Espinoza to cooperate or he would arrest her for DUI based on his and Temple's observations. Espinoza refused to cooperate and said she could call a supervisor from her office to come pick her up.

Based on his own observations of Espinoza and based on Temple's observations, Gonzalez concluded Espinoza had been driving while under the influence of alcohol and placed her under arrest. Espinoza became emotional and upset. Gonzalez admonished Espinoza pursuant to the implied consent law that she had to submit to a blood or breath test. Espinoza told Gonzalez she would take a blood test "pursuant to McNeely ." Gonzalez told Espinoza that her refusal to submit to a chemical test would result in her license being suspended for one year. Gonzalez then transported Espinoza to the county jail.

At the jail, Espinoza refused to submit to a chemical test. Using a DS 367 form ("AGE 21 AND OLDER OFFICER'S STATEMENT"), Gonzalez advised Espinoza that: (1) she was suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol and, therefore, had the right to choose a blood or breath test; (2) refusal to submit to or failure to complete a blood or breath test would result in her license being suspended for one year or revoked for two or three years; (3) refusal to submit to or failure to complete a blood or breath test could be used against her in court and would result in a fine and imprisonment if she was convicted of DUI; (4) she did not have the right to have an attorney present when deciding whether to submit to a chemical test and when choosing which test; and (5) if she was incapable of completing one of the two test options, she had to submit to the other.

Espinoza told Gonzalez she would submit to a blood test, but only if the officer obtained a "subpoena," "pursuant to McNeely " from the on-duty judge, compelling her to submit to a blood test. Gonzalez understood Espinoza to mean she would submit to a blood test if he first got a warrant. Gonzalez told Espinoza that her willingness to submit to a blood test with a warrant would be treated as a refusal. Gonzalez also told Espinoza that, after the decision in McNeely , the policy of the CHP was to obtain warrants for forced blood draws only in felony DUI cases,4 and that no warrant would be requested in Espinoza's case. No warrant was obtained, so no blood test was taken. In addition, Espinoza did not submit to a breath test. Espinoza was then booked into jail on suspicion of DUI. Gonzalez personally served Espinoza with notice that her driver's license was suspended or revoked, and forwarded the DS 367 form and his DUI investigation report to the Department.

B. Administrative Per Se Hearing.

Espinoza requested an administrative hearing to review the order suspending her driver's license, during which Temple and Gonzalez testified to the facts just stated. Espinoza introduced the expert testimony of Felix D'Amico, a retired sheriff's sergeant and drug recognition expert. D'Amico testified he reviewed the reports prepared by the arresting officer and the mobile video audio recording (MVAR) taken from Gonzalez's police vehicle.

D'Amico testified he observed no "bad driving" on Espinoza's part, although she was talking on a cellular phone, and that Espinoza had no problem getting out of her vehicle and walking to the curb. Contrary to Temple's account, D'Amico testified that after viewing the MVAR, he concluded Espinoza parked no more than 12 inches from the curb when she was stopped, and there was nothing wrong with the way she parked. D'Amico testified Espinoza did not slur her speech, she had no problem answering the officers' questions, and she was coherent. With regard to Gonzalez's testimony that he observed no mental impairment

, D'Amico testified a person cannot be under the influence of alcohol if he or she is not mentally impaired. D'Amico testified he observed no mental impairment because Espinoza had no problem answering the officers' questions and, although she refused to submit to any tests, she did not argue with or show animosity toward the officers. D'Amico also testified that Espinoza was standing straight, she was not swaying, she did not have an unsteady gait, and she did not fall down.

D'Amico testified bloodshot eyes do not necessarily indicate a person is under the influence of alcohol because there are many reasons why a person's eyes may become bloodshot. D'Amico testified odor of an alcoholic beverage on a person's breath merely indicates the person had alcohol in his or her mouth at some point and does not indicate the person actually swallowed the alcohol. D'Amico opined that Espinoza was not under the influence of alcohol and, therefore, Officer Gonzalez did not have probable cause to lawfully place Espinoza under arrest.

The hearing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • State v. Mitchell
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 3 Julio 2018
    ...test" language a multitude of times. See, e.g., Robertson v. Pichon, 849 F.3d 1173, 1184 n.7 (9th Cir. 2017) ; Espinoza v. Shiomoto, 215 Cal.Rptr.3d 807, 829 (Ct. App. 2017) ; State v. Ryce, 306 Kan. 682, 396 P.3d 711, 717 (2017) ; State v. Reynolds, 504 S.W.3d 283, 307 (Tenn. 2016). The co......
  • Gordon v. ARC Mfg., Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 19 Diciembre 2019
    ...favorable to the judgment.4 We review only the correctness of the trial court's ruling, not its rationale. (Espinoza v. Shiomoto (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 85, 100, 215 Cal.Rptr.3d 807.)5 The holding in Knight, supra , 3 Cal.4th 296, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696 was "subsequently accepted by a......
  • State v. Pettijohn
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 30 Junio 2017
    ...constitutional challenges to implied-consent laws imposing civil penalties for refusing breath tests. See Espinoza v. Shiomoto , 10 Cal.App.5th 85, 215 Cal.Rptr.3d 807, 831 (2017) ("[W]e conclude refusal to submit to a breath test incident to arrest may also be the basis of imposing civil p......
  • State v. Lemeunier-Fitzgerald
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 3 Julio 2018
    ...after three witnesses testified differently about what happened when the defendant's blood was drawn); Espinoza v. Shiomoto , 10 Cal.App.5th 85, 215 Cal.Rptr.3d 807, 823–34 (2017) (reviewing whether a driver voluntarily consented to testing, or instead refused testing, when she conditioned ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Appendices
    • 30 Marzo 2022
    ..., 466 U.S. 765, 787 n.30 (1984), §3:44.4 Eshaghian v. Municipal Court (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 1070, §6:21.6 Espinoza v. Shiomoto (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 85, §§11:122.2.2, 11:142.4.1(d), 12:47, 12:49.1, 11:142.4.11 Estate of Foxworth (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 784, §11:83 Estate of McNamara (1953) 11......
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...8, §1.1.1(1)(a) Eric J., In re, 25 Cal. 3d 522, 159 Cal. Rptr. 317, 601 P.2d 549 (1979)—Ch. 5-C, §2.1.3(2)(g) Espinoza v. Shiomoto, 10 Cal. App. 5th 85, 215 Cal. Rptr. 3d 807 (4th Dist. 2017)—Ch. 1, §4.8.6 Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S. Ct. 1866, 68 L. Ed. 2d 359 (1981)—Ch. 4-C, §2.......
  • Chapter 1 - §4. Relevance of specific evidence
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 1 Relevance
    • Invalid date
    ...See People v. Sudduth (1966) 65 Cal.2d 543, 546-48. • Refusal to submit to field sobriety tests. Espinoza v. Shiomoto (4th Dist.2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 85, 103. • Refusal to submit to court-ordered drug tests. In re Noah G. (2d Dist.2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1303-04. Note Because the taking ......
  • Criminal appeals and civil writs
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Volume 2
    • 30 Marzo 2022
    ...than one day, the statement of decision may be made orally on the record in the presence of the parties.” Espinoza v. Shiomoto (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 85 indicates that this provision is applicable to writ proceedings against the DMV, even though the statute references trials. PR A CTICE TIP ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT