Matthew Ruff Wins Torrance DUI Case

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 Torrance DUI Lawyer, 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.  

Case Victory Profile: How Top Torrance DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff Beat a .20% BAC Charge

Facing a DUI with a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) more than double the legal limit is a daunting situation. In California, a BAC of 0.20% typically triggers severe administrative penalties and enhanced criminal court consequences. However, as this real case demonstrates, even the highest chemical readings can be completely dismantled by a highly experienced, aggressive DUI defense attorney.  

Top Torrance DUI defense lawyer Matthew Ruff proved this by securing a complete Order of Set Aside from the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for a client who allegedly registered identical .20% results on both preliminary and evidentiary breath tests.

The Ultimate Outcome: The administrative suspension was officially SET ASIDE by the DMV Legal Affairs Division. The client was cleared with no reissue fees, no requirement for an SR-22 insurance certificate, and full reinstatement of driving privileges.

The Case Details & Objective Symptoms

According to Torrance Police Department records, officers responded to a call regarding a "possible abandoned vehicle" blocking a driveway at an elementary school parking lot in Torrance, CA. Upon arrival, they discovered the driver passed out in the driver’s seat.  

Police Report Data:

Arresting Agency: Torrance Police Department  

Vehicle State: The vehicle was "ON" with the engine idling, and the driver’s foot was resting on the brake.  

Objective Symptoms: The officers noted bloodshot/watery eyes, slurred speech, a flushed face, and an unsteady balance.  

PAS Test Results: 0.203% at 7:18 PM and 0.191% at 7:20 PM.  

Evidentiary Breath Results: 0.20% at 7:55 PM and 0.20% at 7:58 PM.  

The Winning Legal Strategy

Winning a case with multiple .20% BAC readings requires looking far beyond the numbers on a breathalyzer printout. Attorney Matthew Ruff aggressively challenged the legal foundation of the DMV’s action by filing a meticulous Memorandum of Points and Authorities targeting the prosecution's lack of foundational evidence.  

1. Attack on the "Three-Hour Presumption"

Under California Vehicle Code § 23152(b), the DMV can automatically presume a driver's BAC during operation matched their chemical test results only if the test was performed within three hours of actual driving.  

Because the vehicle was reported by a citizen as "abandoned," it had been stationary for an unknown duration. The arresting officers did not witness the vehicle in motion. Attorney Ruff successfully argued that without a verified, legally proven "Time of Driving," the state cannot invoke the three-hour statutory window. Without this bridge, the test results only prove the client's BAC at the time of the test, not while operating the vehicle.  

2. Demanding Retrograde Extrapolation Evidence

Mr. Ruff argued that in the absence of the three-hour presumption, the burden of proof shifts heavily to the DMV. To sustain a suspension, the department is legally required to provide expert toxicologist testimony to "relate back" the chemical test results to the time behind the wheel. Because the DMV hearing officer lacked this crucial retrograde extrapolation data, the state's case legally collapsed.  

3. Absence of Volitional Movement ("Driving")

Citing landmark California case law (such as Mercer v. DMV), Matthew Ruff pointed out that simply sitting inside an idling car does not constitute "driving" under California law. While the police narrative stated the vehicle rolled backwards accidentally when the client was ordered to place it in "Park," Ruff demonstrated that this did not qualify as a volitional, intentional act of operation initiated for the purpose of driving.  

The Official DMV Order

Following the legal arguments presented by Matthew Ruff at the El Segundo Driver Safety Office, the DMV issued a formal order:

"After a review of the information on file, including any evidence which you may have presented, the action(s) effective March 5, 2026, pursuant to §133532 of the Vehicle Code (VC), is set aside."

CASE STATUS: TOTAL VICTORY / SUSPENSION SET ASIDE