Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Alex Bocanegra was arrested on January 2, 2024, after rear-ending a stopped vehicle on Pico Boulevard in Los Angeles. Officers reported red and watery eyes, swaying, and slurred speech. Bocanegra refused to submit to a chemical test, and the Department of Motor Vehicles imposed an administrative per se suspension. At the April 3, 2024 APS hearing, the administrative hearing officer admitted the sworn DS-367 form, the arrest report, the traffic collision report, and DMV records. Bocanegra's counsel generally objected to the two reports and submitted bodycam videos, arguing that the videos showed only an incomplete warning about the consequences of refusing testing.
The hearing officer upheld a one-year suspension running from April 26, 2024, to April 25, 2025. The Kern County Superior Court denied Bocanegra's administrative petition for writ of mandate on December 18, 2024. The DMV later issued a separate revocation order running from May 23, 2025, to May 2, 2027. On appeal from the denial of the writ, Bocanegra challenged both the hearing officer's neutrality and the adequacy of the implied-consent admonition, and he also asked the court to replace the later revocation with the earlier one-year suspension.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Appellate District affirmed. On due process, the court explained that combining adjudication with neutral collection and development of evidence does not by itself violate due process; the constitutionally prohibited combination is adjudication and advocacy. Because the 2022 CDLA injunction had ended the DMV policy requiring hearing officers to act as advocates, Bocanegra bore the burden of presenting specific evidence of actual bias or circumstances creating an unacceptable risk of bias. The court found none: the hearing officer described himself as a neutral factfinder, admitted routine law-enforcement documents, allowed counsel to present bodycam videos and argument without interruption, called no witnesses, and made no clear evidentiary mischaracterizations indicating advocacy.
On the implied-consent warning, the court agreed that the audible bodycam statement around 11:10 p.m. was inadequate because it referred generally to tests, said the license could be suspended, and omitted the duration of any suspension. Standing alone, that roadside statement would have warranted relief. But the DS-367 form and the arrest report stated that Officer Miller read the full printed chemical-test admonition at the police station at 11:30 p.m. Applying the official-duty presumption, the court held that the sworn form conclusively established a proper warning and that Bocanegra's subsequent refusal was legally effective.
The court also held that Bocanegra forfeited his attacks on the DS-367 form because he did not object to that form or raise corresponding issues administratively, and his opening brief did not adequately develop them. Those arguments also failed substantively because a sworn DS-367 form may trigger the official-duty presumption even when the submitting officer records another officer's performance of official duties. The court declined to disavow Knudsen, rejected the claim that CDLA's footnote five was mere dicta, and treated the later two-year revocation as outside the appealed order and procedurally forfeited. It therefore affirmed the denial of the writ and awarded the DMV costs on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A DMV hearing officer may adjudicate an APS case while neutrally collecting and developing evidence without becoming an unconstitutional advocate.
- After the CDLA injunction ended the mandatory advocacy policy, a driver must supply specific evidence of bias or circumstances creating an unacceptable risk of bias.
- An incomplete roadside warning captured on bodycam does not defeat suspension when a sworn DS-367 form establishes that the full admonition was later read.
- The official-duty presumption can apply when one officer reports another officer's performance of official duties on the DS-367 form.
- The appellate court affirmed the writ denial and awarded the DMV costs, but did not adjudicate the merits of the separately issued two-year revocation.
Why It Matters
The opinion distinguishes the defective roadside warning visible on bodycam footage from the complete administrative record. Although the court expressly found the audible roadside admonition insufficient, the later documented station-house warning supplied the missing foundation for the suspension. The decision also treats the DS-367 form as independently significant rather than allowing the hearing officer's discussion of bodycam footage to obscure that evidence.
The ruling illustrates how preservation rules can independently defeat challenges to administrative evidence. Its due-process analysis separates permissible evidence development from prohibited advocacy, while its disposition leaves the later revocation without a merits ruling because of jurisdictional and briefing barriers.