JAMES V. PEPIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant and Respondent
Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One
July 22, 1969

The Department of Motor Vehicles ordered Plaintiff (James V. Pepin’s) driver’s license suspended for his refusal to submit to any of the blood alcohol tests required by Vehicle Code, section 13353, after he was arrested by an officer who had reasonable cause to believe he was driving while drunk.  Plaintiff brought mandamus in the superior court to compel the DMV to reinstate his driving privileges.  The Superior Court of San Diego County denied the driver’s application for a writ of mandamus to compel defendant Department of Motor Vehicles to reinstate a driving license.  Plaintiff driver sought review the above judgment.

Issues:

Whether the trial Court erred in denying the Plaintiff Writ of Mandamus?
Whether § 13353 violate the driver’s right to equal protection?

Conclusion:

Pepin un-meritoriously asserts that because section 13353 does not permit an exception for “employment-livelihood” cases, similar to that of Vehicle Code, section 13210, he is denied the equal protection of the laws.  The issue is whether section 13353 arbitrarily discriminates against certain classes of persons who refuse to take the chemical test, as opposed to other classes who also refuse the test.  No discrimination exists.  No particular class of person is selected for suspension for refusing a chemical test.

The suspension is mandatory, not discretionary.  Pepin did not have a constitutional right to refuse to take the chemical test.

Hence the Court affirmed the trial Court’s Judgment.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content