Source: https://www.sanfranciscoduidefense.com/dui-defense/california-dui-laws/california-caselaw/padilla-v-meese/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 03:59:25+00:00

Document:
In this case we first consider whether, for purposes of a misdemeanor arrest for drunk driving, a vehicle must be moved in the presence of the arresting officer in order for the offense to occur in his presence. We hold that the vehicle must be moved. We next consider whether the preventative actions taken by a state inspector at an agricultural inspection station against a drunk driver constituted a lawful citizen's arrest. We hold that the inspector's actions constituted a valid arrest even though he was confused about the technical requirements of a citizen's arrest.
After an administrative hearing the Department of Motor Vehicles rendered a decision suspending the driving privilege of appellant Gerald James Padilla pursuant to the implied consent law. (Veh. Code, Â§ 13353.) The suspension followed appellant's refusal to submit to a chemical test to determine his blood alcohol level after an arrest for driving while under the influence of alcohol. (Veh. Code, Â§ 23152.) Plaintiff unsuccessfully sought a writ of administrative mandate in the Superior Court of El Dorado County. He appeals from a judgment denying his petition contending that the department erred in denying his request for a continuance of the administrative hearing. He further contends that he was not lawfully arrested and therefore [184 Cal. App. 3d 1025] his license may not be suspended. For the reasons which follow, we reject these contentions and shall affirm the judgment.
The facts necessary for consideration of the issues on appeal are relatively straightforward. Mitch Miller is an inspector for the Department of Food and Agriculture. On New Year's morning, January 1, 1984, he was working at the Meyers Inspection Station near South Lake Tahoe when a citizen drove in and complained of the erratic driving of a person in a white Chevrolet pickup truck. The citizen reported that the truck had turned onto a side street, to which he pointed. Two or three minutes later Miller observed plaintiff drive his white Chevrolet pickup truck off the sidestreet and into the inspection station. Plaintiff stopped and told Miller, "I'm no California," or "I'm not a Californian." Miller could smell the odor of alcohol on plaintiff's breath and noted that his speech was slurred. He believed that plaintiff had been drinking too much.
The question of the validity of plaintiff's arrest arises because Miller appeared confused about the legal definition of a citizen's arrest. He testified that he had been advised by California Highway Patrol personnel that if he wanted to make an arrest of a drunk driver at the inspection station it would have to be a citizen's arrest. He had been instructed by the patrol that he should simply instruct the person to park or if that was not possible to write down the license number and report it. He understood that his authority as a peace officer only extended to enforcement of the food and agriculture laws, and he believed he was acting as a private citizen in taking the actions in this case. But he also testified that it is not his procedure to make a citizen's arrest, and that he did not intend to arrest plaintiff. Nevertheless, he informed plaintiff that he believed he had been drinking too much and told him to pull over and park. Plaintiff complied.
Plaintiff contends that his arrest was unlawful and as a consequence his suspension cannot stand. At an implied consent hearing there are four issues tendered: (1) whether the peace officer had reasonable cause to believe the person had been driving a motor vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152 or 23153 (colloquially referred to as drunk driving); (2) whether the person was placed under arrest; (3) whether the person refused to submit to or did not complete a chemical test; and (4) whether the person had been told that his or her driving privilege would be suspended upon a failure or refusal to submit to or complete the test. (Veh. Code, Â§ 13353, subd. (c)(1), now subd. (b).) There was ample evidence to support the department's findings with respect to issues (1), (3) and (4). Officer Nagel's personal observations of plaintiff reasonably led him to suspect plaintiff was intoxicated. The fact that plaintiff was alone and behind the wheel of the truck with the engine running at an isolated location, together with Miller's report to the officer, supported the reasonable belief that plaintiff had driven in his intoxicated condition. (People v. Hanggi (1968) 265 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 969, 972 [70 Cal.Rptr. 540]; see also People v. Wilson (1985) 176 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 1, 9 [222 Cal.Rptr. 540].) Nagel testified that he advised plaintiff of the requirement that he submit to a test and that he would have his driving privilege suspended for failure to do so. Plaintiff does not contend that the evidence does not support these findings. Instead, his sole claim is that he was not lawfully arrested. Since a driver's license cannot be suspended under the implied consent law if the arrest was unlawful (Buttimer v. Alexis (1983) 146 Cal. App. 3d 754 at p. 758 [194 Cal.Rptr. 603]), we turn to that contention.
[1b] The actions commenced by Miller and completed by Nagel in this case conform in all significant respect to a standard citizen's arrest with delegation of the physical arrest to the highway patrol officer. Moments before the incident a citizen had complained to Miller about plaintiff's erratic driving. Miller observed plaintiff drive his truck into the inspection station, and from his speech and the odor of alcohol about him Miller reasonably concluded he was in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152. Miller told plaintiff that he had been drinking too much to drive and told him to pull over and park. He summoned Nagel and upon his arrival told him of his conclusions. Nagel performed the physical act of arrest. In viewing the entire transaction rather than focusing upon Nagel's participation in isolation, we conclude the arrest was valid under the authorities we have cited above.
Plaintiff contends, however, that Miller had no authority to detain him because his duties were limited to enforcement of the food and agriculture laws. Penal Code section 836.5, subdivision (a) provides: "A public officer or employee, when authorized by ordinance, may arrest a person without a warrant whenever he has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a misdemeanor in his presence which is a violation of a statute or ordinance which the officer or employee has the duty to enforce." Food and Agriculture Code sections 5341 through 5348, give agricultural inspectors the authority to enforce food and agriculture laws; they do not purport to give such inspectors the duty or authority to enforce motor vehicle laws. Plaintiff therefore argues that Miller could not lawfully detain him.
The sole factor that would cast any doubt upon the validity of Miller's actions as a citizen's arrest was his somewhat confused understanding of the nature of an arrest. He testified that he had been advised that he had no authority to make an arrest as an inspector and would have to act as a private citizen. He continued "and that just by simply asking a person to park or if that's not possible to write down the license number and call. That is our procedure ...." He testified that he believed he was acting as a private citizen. He also testified that he did not intend to arrest plaintiff.
Regan, Acting P. J., and Evans, J., concurred.
FN 2. In McDonald v. Justice Court (1967) 249 Cal. App. 2d 960, 963 [58 Cal.Rptr. 29] (disapproved on another ground in People v. Superior Court (Hawkins) (1972) 6 Cal. 3d 757, 765, fn. 7 [100 Cal.Rptr. 281, 493 P.2d 1145]) we held, without analysis, that officers had sufficient grounds for a misdemeanor drunk driving arrest when they arrived within minutes after a drunken driver had crashed into a parked car. When the officers arrived at a scene the vehicle was resting partly on the lawn and sidewalk, and the defendant was behind the wheel in an injured and obviously intoxicated condition. We inferentially found that the officers were present when the crime was committed. (See People v. Ashley (1971) 17 Cal. App. 3d 1122, 1126, fn. 4 [95 Cal.Rptr. 509].) But there was no evidence that car was ever moved in the presence of the officers. Nor was there any evidence that the injured driver, who was bleeding from the head, nose and mouth, had taken any steps to resume travel or even that the vehicle was capable of movement. McDonald confuses the requirement that the misdemeanor offense be committed in the officer's presence with the related but distinct requirement that the officer have probable cause to believe the person to be arrested had driven the vehicle while intoxicated. Since McDonald cannot withstand scrutiny on that point, we decline to follow it.
FN 4. The distinction involves whether the officer is entitled to the statutory civil immunity provided to officers in the scope of their duties by Penal Code section 836.5, subdivision (b). Since in this case there is no question of civil liability and/or immunity presented, and we conclude that the arrest was valid as a citizen's arrest, we have no reason to consider whether the arrest should be considered one by a public officer or employee.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.