999 Fifth Avenue, Suite 350, San Rafael, CA 94901

Call Today for Your Free Consultation
Call Us 415-729-7300

San Francisco DUI Lawyer - License Revocation Actions

Posted on in

Exclusionary Rule Inapplicable
Miller v. Toler
___ S.E. ___, 2012 WL 2076514 (W.Va.) (June 6, 2012)

Citing sister-state decisions from Connecticut, Maine, and Utah, as well as federal court rulings, the West Virginia Supreme Court held the exclusionary rule does not apply in civil administrative hearings concerning the suspension or revocation of a driver’s license. The rationale is that (1) the purpose of the rule is to deter unlawful police conduct, and application of the rule to criminal proceedings provides a sufficient deterrence; and (2) The judicially created exclusionary rule is not a constitutional right of the accused.

Burglin commentary : California requires establishment of a lawful arrest as one of the issues in a license suspension/revocation hearing, and counsel may contend that an unlawful detention tainted the subsequent arrest and made it illegal.

Lawfulness of Arrest Is ContingentUpon Lawfulness of Initial Detention
Wisconsin v. Anagnos (June 26, 2012)
___ N.W.2d ___, 2012 WL 2378548 (Wis.)

In a license revocation hearing that requires proof of a lawful arrest, the inquiry may include whether the traffic stop preceding the arrest was justified by probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

Citing Welsh v. Wisconsin (1984) 466 U.S. 740, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a motorist is not “lawfully placed under arrest" if he is seized during the course of an unconstitutional traffic stop. ( Welsh determined that the defendant therein was not “lawfully placed under arrest" because the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by seizing the defendant in his home without a warrant and without exigent circumstances.).

Back to Top