TORRANCE, CA — The Law Offices of Matthew Ruff has secured a total administrative victory in a high-stakes Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Administrative Per Se (APS) hearing, achieving a complete "Set Aside" and fully restoring a client's driving privileges despite initial chemical test results showing a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) over the legal limit.
The case, adjudicated before DMV Hearing Officer C. Cheung, provides a benchmark example of how a highly technical, precise legal defense can dismantle the state’s case even when the objective evidence initially seems stacked against the motorist.
The Incident and the State's Deficient Timeline
According to official police records, Torrance Police Department officers responded to a "man down" call regarding an individual discovered unconscious in the driver’s seat of a stationary, running vehicle at the intersection of Torrance Blvd and Madrona Ave. Upon making contact, officers reported standard signs of intoxication, including slurred speech, unsteady balance, and bloodshot, watery eyes. The driver was subsequently arrested and submitted to a chemical breath test at the station, which recorded two identical readings of 0.10% BAC—well over California’s 0.08% legal threshold.
However, upon conducting a meticulous review of the Age 21 and Older Officer's Statement (Form DS 367) and the accompanying arrest logs, veteran criminal defense attorney Matthew Ruff identified a fatal flaw in the prosecution's foundation: law enforcement failed to document the exact time of driving.
The Winning Strategy: Attacking the Legal Bridge
To sustain an administrative driver's license suspension, the DMV routinely relies on California Vehicle Code § 23152(b), commonly known as the Three-Hour Presumption. This statute allows the state to presume a driver's BAC at the time of a chemical test matches their BAC at the time of driving, provided the test is performed within three hours of operation.
In his comprehensive Administrative Hearing Brief, Mr. Ruff systematically executed a multi-layered legal attack:
Establishing the Absence of "Driving": Under long-standing California case law (Mercer v. DMV), "driving" requires the actual movement of the vehicle. Because the vehicle was already stationary when police arrived, there was no observed time of movement to establish a legal timeline.
The Foundational Burden: Relying on California Evidence Code § 600(a) and Santos v. DMV, Ruff argued that a legal presumption is not evidence itself and cannot be invoked unless the underlying facts to trigger it are first proven. Without a verified "start time," the three-hour clock cannot legally begin.
Shifting the Onus to the DMV: By successfully rendering the three-hour presumption inapplicable, Ruff stripped the DMV of its primary shortcut. This forced the Department to independently prove that the driver was over the legal limit at the exact moment of driving—a standard the state could not meet without complex, absent expert toxicological extrapolation.
A Complete Victory and Restoration of Rights
Faced with Mr. Ruff’s airtight legal brief and supporting constitutional authorities, the DMV conceded. On May 22, 2026, the Department issued an official Order of Set Aside or Reinstatement, completely lifting the suspension.
The client's driving privileges were restored in full without any restrictive requirements, such as paying a reissue fee or obtaining costly SR-22 high-risk financial responsibility insurance.
"This case highlights a critical constitutional safeguard: the government must always meet its strict evidentiary burdens," said Matthew Ruff. "When law enforcement relies on assumptions rather than concrete facts, motorists have a right to hold them accountable. A breath test reading alone is never the end of the story."
About the Law Offices of Matthew Ruff:
With over three decades of dedicated criminal defense experience, Matthew Ruff represents clients facing DUI and criminal charges across Torrance, Los Angeles County, and Southern California. Known for his aggressive, detail-oriented advocacy, Mr. Ruff specializes in unearthing critical procedural errors to protect the constitutional rights, freedom, and driving privileges of his clients.
