DMV Hearings

* A recent 4-3 decision by the California Supreme Court represents another step toward the police state which the majority (Justices Armand Arabian, Malcolm Lucas, Marvin Baxter and Ronald George) endorses. Justices Joyce Kennard, Edward Panelli and Stanley Mosk dissented from a shocking decision which grants to Department of Motor Vehicles bureaucrats greater power to make legal decisions than the judges of our trial courts.

When a person is arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol, the privilege to operate a motor vehicle is suspended by the DMV effective 30 days after the arrest. This administrative action is separate and apart from the consequences of criminal prosecution in court.

The motorist has a right to request a hearing at the DMV to challenge, among other things, whether the peace officer has legal cause to effect a detention. The motorist can also ask a judge to determine the legality of the detention in the criminal proceedings.

Anyone who has had the misfortune of participating in a DMV hearing knows the futility of that process. The DMV employees who conduct the hearings present themselves as advocates for the police, lack any semblance of objectivity, treat motorists with sarcasm and inevitably rubber-stamp the police officer’s action. They do not recognize fundamental principles of due process of law.

In Gikas vs. Zolin, the 4-3 majority of the court decided that a judge’s determination in the criminal prosecution that a motorist had been illegally arrested can be ignored by the DMV hearing officers, who are free to make a contrary determination. Once again, the men appointed to the Supreme Court by Govs. George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson have demonstrated that the ends justify the means. Removing impaired drivers from the highways is a laudable societal goal, but we continue to pay a heavy price in the erosion of the constitutional protections against arbitrary action by government employees.

GEORGE C. ESKIN

Ventura