Skip to content
Name: Troppman v. Valverde
Case #: S132496
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 04/26/2007
Summary

Proof of actual driving immediately before an arrest for driving under the influence is not required for suspension of a driver’s license for failure to submit to chemical testing. The California Supreme Court granted review in this case to determine whether the DMV may suspend the person’s driver’s license when a police officer has found that person intoxicated in a parked vehicle on the side of the road under circumstances which lead the officer to suspect that he has been driving while under the influence, and the person fails to submit to sobriety testing. The Courts of Appeal have issued conflicting opinions on the issue: three opinions have concluded that proof of actual driving immediately prior to arrest is required before a license can be revoked for failing to submit to a chemical test. Two decisions disagreed, finding that proof of actual driving is not required under the circumstances. The Supreme Court agreed with the latter two decisions and with the Court of Appeal in this case. Consent to testing pursuant to Vehicle Code section 23612 applies broadly to “those who drive” and does not require proof of actual driving immediately prior to arrest for driving under the influence. License revocation under section 13353 and related statutes for failure to submit to chemical testing under the implied consent law similarly do not require proof that the person was actually driving immediately before the arrest, but only that the arresting officer had reasonable cause to believe the person had been driving a motor vehicle while under the influence.