On September 19, 2020, a motorist, George Loy Clarke, was pulled over and then arrested for driving under the influence. Following his arrest, the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) held an administrative per se (APS) hearing. In the hearing, the DMV decided to suspend Clarke’s driver’s license. The same employee from the DMV served as the DMV’s advocate and the adjudicator of the hearing.
Clarke argued that the DMV’s administrative decision to suspend his driver’s license must be reversed because the manner in which the DMV conducted the administrative hearing violated his right to due process. Clarke cited a case called California DUI Lawyers Assn. v. Department of Motor Vehicles to support his claim. The DUI Lawyers case held that the DMV’s policy of assigning a single employee to act as both the DMV’s advocate and the adjudicator in an APS hearing violated due process under the U.S. and California constitutions.
The Court agreed with Clarke. The Court explained that it is not the employee’s designation or title that is dispositive. It is the function the employee actually performs that will decide the issue. In Clarke’s case, the hearing officer (HO) marshalled, identified, and offered into evidence the DMV’s exhibits. The HO then overruled Clarke’s objections and admitted those exhibits. The HO thereafter cross-examined Clarke. The Court concluded that the HO assumed the prohibited dual roles of adjudicator and advocate. When the HO thereafter suspended Clarke’s driver’s license, his right to receive due process was violated.
Clarke v. Gordon. 2024 Cal.App. LEXIS 565 (9/12/24).