California Legal Brief

The Rule of Myers v. Department of Motor Vehicles is that body-worn camera video evidence showing an officer failed to continuously observe a DUI suspect for 15 minutes before administering a chemical breath test successfully rebuts the Evidence Code section 664 presumption of compliance with Title 17 regulations, under circumstances where the video objectively demonstrates the officer left the suspect alone in a patrol car with doors closed during the observation period.

Appeal from judgment after writ of mandate hearing in Superior Court, Kern County.

Defendant Appellant was Department of Motor Vehicles — the agency that suspended Myers's driver's license for four months based on chemical breath test results.

Plaintiff Respondent was James William Myers — the driver who challenged his license suspension claiming Title 17 violations in the breath test procedure.

The suit sounded in administrative mandamus to overturn a DMV license suspension. No cross-claims.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Myers was arrested for DUI on October 5, 2023, with preliminary alcohol screening tests showing 0.160% and 0.162% BAC. Officer Goodrich administered chemical breath tests at 12:04 a.m. and 12:08 a.m. showing 0.15% and 0.16% BAC respectively. Goodrich certified compliance with Title 17's 15-minute continuous observation requirement. Body-worn camera video showed Myers was left alone in the patrol car with doors closed on two occasions during the approximate 15-minute observation period before the first chemical breath test.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court granted Myers's petition for writ of mandate and overturned the license suspension, ruling that the video evidence rebutted the presumption that Goodrich complied with Title 17's observation requirements, and the DMV failed to present additional evidence proving test reliability despite the violation.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether video evidence showing gaps in the 15-minute observation period was sufficient to rebut the Evidence Code section 664 presumption of compliance with Title 17; 2. Whether the DMV could rely on circumstantial evidence to establish Myers's BAC was above 0.08% despite Title 17 violations.

The Appellate Court held that objective video evidence showing an officer left a DUI suspect unobserved during the mandatory 15-minute observation period constitutes substantial evidence rebutting the presumption of Title 17 compliance, and once this burden-shifting occurs, the DMV must provide additional evidence of test reliability beyond the officer's sworn certification.

The case is inapplicable when the officer maintains continuous observation through sight, sound, or other senses throughout the 15-minute period, when the DMV presents additional evidence proving test reliability despite procedural violations, or when video evidence does not objectively demonstrate gaps in observation.

The case leaves open whether certain types of circumstantial evidence could support BAC findings independent of chemical test results, the exact parameters of what constitutes adequate "continuous observation" under Title 17, and whether other forms of evidence besides video could successfully rebut the Evidence Code section 664 presumption.