Wall v. Shiomoto
After providing Phillip Wall an administrative hearing, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) suspended his driver’s license subsequent to his arrest for violating Vehicle Code[1] section 23152. Wall pled guilty to the new offense and admitted he suffered a prior conviction for violating section 23152. The court ordered Wall to complete a driving-under-the-influence alcohol program and when the DMV received notification of Wall’s enrollment, it set aside the suspension and issued Wall a restricted driver’s license. The DMV subsequently suspended Wall’s license again when it received notice Wall did not successfully complete the program. (§ 13352, subd. (e).) Section 14101 provides that a driver is not entitled to a hearing when the DMV is required to suspend the driver’s license, as the DMV was in this case.
Wall contends the DMV’s suspension of his license violated due process because he was not provided a hearing to determine whether his termination from the alcohol program was arbitrary or capricious. We conclude that even if a driver is entitled to a hearing to demonstrate termination from the program was arbitrary or capricious, Wall’s petition did not allege facts tending to indicate his termination from the alcohol program was arbitrary or capricious. Consequently, we affirm the superior court’s order denying relief on Wall’s petition for a writ of mandate.
Comments on Wall v. Shiomoto