Opinion ID: 2791488
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Rebuttable Presumption in Section 23152

Text: We first address whether the presumption created by section 23152, subdivision (b) controls this case. That provision states in part: ―In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable presumption that the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three hours after the driving.‖ Although the statutory language speaks in terms of a ―prosecution,‖ several Courts of Appeal have held this presumption is not limited to criminal prosecutions but also applies in administrative license suspension proceedings. (Corrigan v. Zolin (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 230, 236, citing Jackson v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 730, 740, fn. 9, and Bell v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 304, 310–313.) Extending the reach of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (b)‘s evidentiary presumption to administrative per se proceedings would be consistent with the legislative history of that provision. The need for the presumption ―arose from the absence in ‗[e]xisting law‘ of any ‗provision for the delay involved between the time a person is arrested for [driving under the influence] and when the chemical test for BAC is actually administered,‘ of any ‗means to determine a person‘s BAC at the time the person is actually driving the car,‘ or of any ‗mention of time parameters for the administering of chemical tests and for their admission as [admissible] evidence into a court of law.‘ (Health & Welf. Agency, Dept. of Alcohol & Drug Programs, Enrolled Bill Rep. for Sen. Bill No. 745 (1981–1982 Reg. Sess.) Sept. 1982, original italics.) Thus, in enacting the 10 presumption, the Legislature intended (1) to ‗diminish the arguments that ha[d] arisen when extrapolating the [BAC] at the time of the test back to the time of the driving‘ (Bus. & Transportation Agency, DMV, Enrolled Bill Rep. for Sen. Bill No. 745 (1981–1982 Reg. Sess.) Sept. 1982), (2) ‗to close a potential loophole in the current law, whereby a person . . . could claim that he or she had consumed . . . alcohol which had not yet been absorbed into the bloodstream while the person was operating the vehicle, but which later raised the blood alcohol level‘ (Governor‘s Office, Dept. of Legal Affairs, Enrolled Bill Rep. for Sen. Bill No. 745 (1981–1982 Reg. Sess.) Sept. 1982), and (3) ‗to recognize that alcohol concentrations dissipate over time, so that a person whose blood alcohol levels exceed the permissible concentrations at the time of the test, was likely to have had unlawfully high blood alcohol levels when driving . . . .‘ ‖ (Bell v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at p. 311.) These three statements of legislative intent would arguably apply to administrative per se proceedings as well. Consistent with the previously cited Court of Appeal cases, both parties assume section 23152‘s presumption applies in administrative per se hearings. We need not resolve that question, however, because even were the presumption applicable, it was rebutted in this case. An explanation of how the presumption operates can be found in the Evidence Code. Section 601 of that code provides: ―A presumption is either conclusive or rebuttable. Every rebuttable presumption is either (a) a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence or (b) a presumption affecting the burden of proof.‖ Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (b), by its terms, creates a rebuttable presumption, and we agree with the parties that it establishes a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence, not the burden of proof. A statute transferring the burden of proof to a driver facing a criminal charge of drunk driving would raise serious constitutional 11 questions (see Ulster County Court v. Allen (1979) 442 U.S. 140, 157 [a permissive presumption is constitutional if, among other things, it ―does not shift the burden of proof‖]; see People v. Gamache (2010) 48 Cal.4th 347, 376 [rejecting claim that jury instruction ―impermissibly alters the burden of proof,‖ explaining the ―instruction does not establish an unconstitutional mandatory presumption in favor of guilt [citation] or otherwise shift or lower the prosecution‘s burden of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt‖]), and although those concerns are inapplicable here because it is an administrative per se proceeding, neither party argues for a different construction. (See People v. Dubon (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 944, 953 [―When a presumption is established to facilitate the determination of the particular action in which the presumption is applied, rather than to implement public policy, it is a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.‖].) A rebuttable presumption requires the trier of fact, given a showing of the preliminary fact (here, that a chemical test result showed plaintiff had a BAC of 0.08 percent or more within three hours of driving), to assume the existence of the presumed fact (here, that plaintiff had been driving with a prohibited BAC) ―unless and until evidence is introduced which would support a finding of its nonexistence, in which case the trier of fact shall determine the existence or nonexistence of the presumed fact from the evidence and without regard to the presumption.‖ (Evid. Code, § 604.) In other words, if evidence sufficient to negate the presumed fact is presented, the ―presumption disappears‖ (Craig v. Brown & Root, Inc. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 416, 421) and ―has no further effect‖ (In re Heather B. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 535, 561), although ―inferences may nevertheless be drawn from the same circumstances that gave rise to the presumption in the first place‖ (Craig v. Brown & Root, Inc., supra, at p. 421; see 12 Evid. Code, § 604 [―Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the drawing of any inference that may be appropriate‖]). Assuming the results of her breath and blood tests gave rise to a presumption she was driving with a BAC of 0.08 percent or more, plaintiff argues the testimony of her expert witness, Jay Williams, supplied the necessary contrary evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption. By contrast, the DMV argues Williams‘s testimony was insufficient, arguing that evidence necessary to rebut the presumption must be substantial, i.e., ― ‗reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value; it must actually be ―substantial‖ proof of the essentials which the law requires in a particular case.‘ ‖ Asserting the DMV hearing officer‘s refusal to credit Williams‘s views shows his testimony was insubstantial, the DMV argues his testimony was accordingly insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption. The DMV misapprehends Evidence Code section 604. That section provides that evidence is sufficient to rebut a presumption if it ―would support a finding of [the] nonexistence of‖ the presumed fact. (Italics added.) The most reasonable meaning of this phrase is that if the predicate facts are found, Vehicle Code section 23152‘s presumption will apply unless the driver presents evidence which, if believed, ―would support a finding of [the] nonexistence of‖ the presumed fact. This plain meaning of the statutory language is supported by the Assembly Committee on Judiciary‘s comment on section 604, which states: ―Such a presumption is merely a preliminary assumption in the absence of contrary evidence, i.e., evidence sufficient to sustain a finding of the nonexistence of the presumed fact. If contrary evidence is introduced, the trier of fact must weigh the inferences arising from the facts that gave rise to the presumption against the contrary evidence and resolve the conflict. For example, if a party proves that a letter was mailed, the trier of fact is required to find that the letter was received in the absence of any believable contrary evidence. However, if the 13 adverse party denies receipt, the presumption is gone from the case. The trier of fact must then weigh the denial of receipt against the inference of receipt arising from proof of mailing and decide whether or not the letter was received.‖ (Assem. Com. on Judiciary com., reprinted at 29B pt. 2, West‘s Ann. Evid. Code (1995 ed.) foll. § 604, p. 59.) Viewing the presumption in section 23152, subdivision (b) in this way, and assuming without deciding that it applies in administrative per se proceedings,10 we find Williams‘s testimony was sufficient to rebut the presumption that plaintiff‘s BAC was at least 0.08 percent at the time she was driving. Williams was qualified as an expert in the field and his testimony was clear and direct. If believed, his evidence would have justified a conclusion that plaintiff‘s BAC was rising at the time of her chemical tests and was thus quite possibly below the 0.08 percent threshold at the time she had been driving. As a consequence, the DMV was required to prove plaintiff‘s BAC at the time she was driving without resort to the statutory presumption. C. The Circumstantial Evidence of Plaintiff’s Intoxication Was Relevant and Thus Admissible Having found the statutory presumption in section 23152, subdivision (b), even if applicable, does not control this case, we turn to the main issue presented here: Did the DMV hearing officer properly admit and consider non-chemical-test 10 The Legislature might in the future wish to clarify whether it intends that the evidentiary presumption in section 23152 applies in administrative per se proceedings as well as in ―prosecutions.‖ 14 evidence to reach her conclusion that plaintiff was driving with at least a 0.08 percent BAC?11 The crime of drunk driving is set forth in section 23152 and can be established in two ways: Subdivision (a) states that ―[i]t is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage to drive a vehicle.‖ To prove a violation under subdivision (a), the People must present evidence the driver‘s alcohol consumption impaired his or her ability to drive. (People v. McNeal (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1183, 1197.) Subdivision (b) offers an alternative method of proof; it states that ―[i]t is unlawful for a person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.‖ To prove a criminal violation under subdivision (b), the People need not prove the accused‘s driving ability was impaired or diminished, but only that the driver‘s BAC reached or exceeded the prohibited level at the time the accused was driving. The administrative per se law‘s license suspension provision, although not a criminal matter, is linked to the second prong of section 23152.12 Thus, license 11 Plaintiff notes the DMV hearing officer failed to submit to crossexamination so that it might be determined how she used the circumstantial evidence to reach her conclusion to reject the testimony of expert witness Jay Williams. This failure, she argues, violated her right to due process of law. Although it seems extremely dubious that plaintiff‘s due process rights require the hearing officer to testify and submit to plaintiff‘s cross-examination, the record in any event reveals no objection on this ground or request that the officer testify. Accordingly, plaintiff forfeited this claim. 12 We are not here concerned with the less typical administrative per se provisions applicable to underage or commercial drivers, or those on probation for drunk driving (see §§ 13353.2, subd. (a)(2) [person under 21 years old with a BAC of 0.01 percent or greater], 13353.2, subd. (a)(3) [person driving a vehicle requiring a commercial driver‘s license with a BAC of 0.04 percent or greater], 13353.2, subd. (a)(4) [person on probation for drunk driving with a BAC of 0.01 percent or greater]), or to adults who refuse to submit to, or complete, a chemical (footnote continued on next page) 15 suspension under the administrative per se law does not require proof of a person‘s impairment to safely operate a motor vehicle due to alcohol consumption, but only that the person‘s BAC level was 0.08 percent or more. Section 13382, subdivision (a) provides in pertinent part: ―If the chemical test results for a person who has been arrested for a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 show that the person has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in the person‘s blood, . . . the peace officer, acting on behalf of the [DMV], shall serve a notice of order of suspension or revocation of the person‘s privilege to operate a motor vehicle personally on the arrested person.‖ (Italics added.) In this case, the DMV presented the results of four chemical tests showing plaintiff‘s BAC was at or above 0.08 percent. Given the presentation of these facially qualifying chemical test results, did the hearing officer abuse her discretion in concluding that non-chemical-test evidence was relevant and thus admissible to bolster or corroborate the chemical test results? Plaintiff argues reliance on the non-chemical-test circumstantial evidence was improper because such evidence cannot by itself establish whether her BAC was 0.08 percent, higher than 0.08 percent, or lower than that level. She cites to scientific evidence showing that physical manifestations of alcohol intoxication can occur at levels much lower than a BAC of 0.08 percent and that observable physical symptoms correlate poorly to actual BAC levels. She also argues that one study has shown that poor performance on field sobriety tests has a low correlation to whether a driver‘s BAC is over 0.08 percent. (Hlastala, Polissar & (footnote continued from previous page) test as requested by a law enforcement officer (§ 13353) or to underage drivers (§ 13388) or adults on probation for drunk driving (§ 13389) who refuse to submit to a preliminary alcohol screening (§ 13353.1, subd. (a)). 16 Oberman, Statistical Evaluation of Standardized Filed Sobriety Tests (May 2005) 50 J. Forensic Science, No. 3, p. 662.) Unmentioned is that some studies have reached a contrary conclusion. For example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released the results of a study in 1998 that evaluated the accuracy of the standardized field sobriety test (SFST) battery at BACs below 0.10 percent. (Stuster and Burns, Final Rep. to NHTSA, Validation of the Standardized Field Sobriety Test Battery at BACs Below 0.10 Percent (1998).) The NHTSA‘s study found that the battery of SFSTs, which includes three of the tests administered to plaintiff (the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the ―walk-and-turn test,‖ and the ―one-leg stand test‖), when administered by a trained officer, are ―extremely accurate in discriminating between BACs above and below 0.08 percent.‖ (Id., at p. v, italics added.) The NHTSA‘s report expressly dispelled a common misapprehension ―that field sobriety tests are designed to measure driving impairment.‖ (Id., at p. 28.) According to the NHTSA, the SFST battery is instead designed specifically to ―provide statistically valid and reliable indications of a driver‘s BAC, rather than indications of driving impairment.‖ We are not here attempting to resolve the scientific debate over the use of SFSTs to predict BAC. As plaintiff acknowledges, the test for admissibility of evidence is not a strict one: As a general matter, evidence may be admitted if relevant (Evid. Code, § 350), and ― ‗[r]elevant evidence‘ means evidence . . . having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action‖ (id., § 210). ― ‗ ―The test of relevance is whether the evidence tends, ‗logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference‘ to establish material facts . . . .‖ ‘ ‖ (People v. Wilson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1237, 1245.) ―The trial court has broad discretion to determine the relevance of evidence [citation], and we will not disturb the court‘s exercise of that discretion 17 unless it acted in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner.‖ (People v. Jones (2013) 57 Cal.4th 899, 947.) Past cases applying this standard have found circumstantial evidence of intoxication may be admissible when later-administered chemical tests show a BAC exceeding the legal limit. In Burg v. Municipal Court, supra, 35 Cal.3d 257 (Burg), decided at a time when the BAC threshold for drunk driving was 0.10 percent,13 we explained that the crime of drunk driving set forth in section 23152, subdivision (b) ―prohibits driving a vehicle with a blood-alcohol level of 0.10 percent or higher; it does not prohibit driving a vehicle when a subsequent test shows a level of 0.10 percent or more. Circumstantial evidence will generally be necessary to establish the requisite blood-alcohol level called for by the statute. A test for the proportion of alcohol in the blood will, obviously, be the usual type of circumstantial evidence, but of course the test is not conclusive: the defendant remains free to challenge the accuracy of the test result, the manner in which it was administered, and by whom. (People v. Lewis (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 614, 620; accord, Fuenning v. Superior Court (Ariz. 1983) 680 P.2d 121, 127. . . [rejecting argument that analogous statute represents ‗substitution of a machine test result for a jury verdict‘ because defendant is given an opportunity to challenge accuracy of test result, and state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant‘s blood-alcohol level was 0.10 percent at the time he was driving]; Cooley v. Municipality Anchorage (Alaska App. 1982) 649 P.2d 251, 254–255.) Of course, both parties may also adduce other circumstantial evidence tending to 13 See former section 23152, subdivision (b), as amended by Statutes 1982, chapter 1337, section 1, page 4961. The administrative per se law was enacted several years later in 1998. (See Stats. 1998, ch. 118, § 4, pp. 757–758.) 18 establish that the defendant did or did not have a 0.10 percent blood-alcohol level while driving. (See, e.g., Fuenning, supra, at p. 130.)‖ (Burg, supra, at p. 266, fn. 10, italics added.) Plaintiff would distinguish Burg, supra, 35 Cal.3d 257, as a case involving a criminal drunk driving prosecution, not an administrative per se matter, but if non-chemical-test circumstantial evidence of intoxication may be admissible in a criminal case where the People‘s burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, we see no reason why such evidence would be categorically inadmissible in an administrative proceeding where the People‘s burden of proof is only a preponderance of the evidence. Decisions in the Courts of Appeal support this conclusion. Thus, in McKinney v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 519, the Court of Appeal considered whether sufficient evidence supported the suspension of a driver‘s license under the administrative per se law. Citing Burg, the McKinney court noted that administration of a chemical test (blood, breath or urine) ―is not the only means of establishing that a driver‘s [BAC] was .08 or more. [¶] . . . [B]oth parties are free to introduce circumstantial evidence bearing on whether the driver‘s [BAC] exceeded the permissible level. [Citation.] ‗Evidence regarding the manner in which a defendant drove, performed field sobriety tests, and behaved is admissible and relevant as tending to establish that he did or did not have a 0.10 [now 0.08] [BAC] while driving.‘ ‖ (McKinney, at p. 526, fn. 6; see Jackson v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 741 [―circumstantial evidence other than chemical test results may properly be admitted to establish a driver had the proscribed level of bloodalcohol at the time of the offense‖]; People v. Randolph (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 7 [same].) Plaintiff argues Burg, supra, 35 Cal.3d 257, is unpersuasive because, apart from the single sentence referencing non-chemical-test circumstantial evidence, 19 the opinion does not elaborate on the use of such evidence to prove a driver‘s BAC. But Burg‘s citation to Fuenning v. Superior Court, supra, 139 Ariz. 590 [680 P.2d 121] (Fuenning), following that sentence is significant.14 In that case, a person charged with drunk driving argued that circumstantial evidence ―regarding the manner in which he was driving, [and] the manner in which he performed the field sobriety tests,‖ while relevant to the issue of whether he drove under the influence of alcohol, was ―irrelevant to the question of whether he . . . [was] driving with a .10% or greater BAC.‖ (Fuenning, supra, at p. 599.) The Supreme Court of Arizona rejected the argument, explaining the evidence was relevant and thus admissible: ―We agree with defendant that the only ultimate issue is whether defendant had a BAC of .10% or greater. In each case in which a violation of [the .10 percent BAC law] is charged, the state will present evidence of the test and the issue will be whether the test results were an accurate measurement of the defendant‘s BAC at the time of arrest. Typically, defendants will attack the margin of error, the conversion rate, the calibration of the test instrument, the technique used by the operator, the absorption and detoxification factors, etc. Evidence of defendant’s conduct and behavior—good or bad—will be relevant to the jury’s determination of whether the test results are an accurate measurement of alcohol concentration at the time of the conduct charged. For instance, the test in the case at bench was given several hours after the arrest and showed a .11% BAC. Defendant attacked the results, presenting evidence regarding margin of 14 Fuenning was later superseded by statute on a different point of law. (See State ex rel. McDougall v. Superior Court in and for County of Maricopa (1995) 181 Ariz. 202, 205–206 [888 P.2d 1389, 1392–1393].) This subsequent history does not affect Fuenning‘s discussion of the admissibility of circumstantial evidence of intoxication. 20 error, time lapse and other factors. Such evidence might raise considerable doubt whether the test result of .11% indicated .10% or greater BAC at the time defendant was arrested. Evidence that at that time the person charged smelled strongly of alcohol, was unable to stand without help, suffered from nausea, dizziness or any of the other ‘symptoms’ of intoxication would justify an inference that a test administered some time after arrest probably produced lower readings than that which would have been produced had the test been administered at the moment of arrest. The converse is also true. Evidence that at the time of arrest defendant was in perfect control, displayed none of the symptoms of intoxication and had not driven in an erratic manner, is relevant to show that a reading of .11% from a test given some time later does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was driving with a .10% or greater BAC at the time of his arrest. Such evidence has been held admissible. [Citations.] Again, evidence is admissible when it is relevant.‖ (Fuenning, supra, at p. 599, italics added.) Plaintiff argues Fuenning is neither controlling nor even on point because it did not address the issue before us in the instant case. Although Fuenning is an Arizona case and thus admittedly not controlling here (see Farmers Ins. Group v. County of Santa Clara (1995) 11 Cal.4th 992, 1018), it persuasively explains why circumstantial evidence of intoxication, while not dispositive, may be relevant and thus admissible15 to help interpret the results of a chemical test for a driver‘s BAC. Moreover, because the Legislature has prohibited driving with a BAC of 0.08 percent or higher, that being the threshold at which a person cannot safely operate a motor vehicle due to alcohol consumption, circumstantial evidence that plaintiff was weaving erratically all over the roadway, smelled strongly of alcohol, 15 To the extent plaintiff argues Fuenning, supra, 139 Ariz. 590, did not address the admissibility issue, she is simply incorrect. 21 and failed a battery of field sobriety tests may bolster chemical test results showing that she had attained or exceeded that BAC level. The administrative per se scheme in section 13382 is triggered by a chemical test result showing a BAC of 0.08 percent or more, and we do not here confront a case in which the DMV failed to present such test results; indeed, the DMV produced the results of four such tests. In other words, neither the DMV hearing officer nor the trial court considered circumstantial evidence of intoxication in the absence of any chemical test results. Although we find nonchemical-test evidence of plaintiff‘s intoxication may be relevant and thus admissible in the typical administrative per se proceeding triggered by a BAC of 0.08 percent or more to help connect those test results to a driver‘s BAC at the time she was driving (subject, of course, to the hearing officer‘s routine exercise of discretion), we would in any event affirm the hearing officer‘s decision in this case because the non-chemical-test evidence was admissible to rebut plaintiff‘s proffered defense that her BAC was low at the time she was driving and only later rose to exceed the legal limit. Her expert, Jay Williams, testified that, in his opinion, the four chemical test results indicated plaintiff‘s BAC was rising at the time of the tests; from that supposition, he further deduced that plaintiff‘s BAC was below the 0.08 percent threshold at the time she was driving. Even assuming that non-chemical-test evidence cannot by itself prove a driver‘s exact BAC at the moment the driver is stopped by a police officer, in this case plaintiff‘s erratic driving, outward appearance of substantial intoxication, implausible story of having just turned 21 years old, and was coming from a bar without having imbibed alcohol at all, and her failure on multiple field sobriety tests, together tend to rebut Williams‘s theory of a rising BAC and corroborate the BAC test results. For example, plaintiff‘s extremely erratic driving, observed by Sergeant Martin from before the moment he first made contact with her, suggests she was quite 22 intoxicated from that early point in the timeline and tends to refute the expert‘s speculation that her BAC was low at the time she was driving, but rose to 0.08 percent and above only after she was stopped. Whether the circumstantial evidence of plaintiff‘s intoxication was admitted to bolster the results of the chemical tests or merely to rebut plaintiff‘s defense of a rising BAC, the hearing officer did not act in ―an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner‖ and thus did not abuse her broad discretion. (People v. Jones, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 947.) Brenner v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 365, cited by plaintiff, does not warrant a contrary result. In that case, an expert examined the maintenance records for the device used to measure the driver‘s breath and opined that it produced slightly elevated results. As the driver‘s test results showed a BAC of 0.08 percent exactly, the expert opined the driver‘s actual BAC was slightly below the legal limit. Because the trial court in Brenner had granted the driver‘s petition for a writ, the Court of Appeal was required to uphold that decision if supported by substantial evidence. By contrast, the instant case comes to us in the opposite procedural posture: the trial court here denied relief to plaintiff and we are bound to uphold that decision if supported by substantial evidence. To the extent the appellate court in Brenner asserted that ―the impressions of the officer may have a bearing on plaintiff‘s level of impairment, [but] they have no bearing on the precise level of his BAC‖ (id. at p. 373), the statement must be read in the context of the case: Because the chemical tests in Brenner were done on a miscalibrated device used to measure the BAC in a breath sample, no accurate chemical test results were presented. No such problem exists in the instant case; the DMV presented the results of four chemical tests and, although plaintiff‘s expert would have interpreted those results to conclude her BAC was rising, he did not testify they inaccurately measured her BAC at the time the tests were run. To the extent the court‘s statement in Brenner 23 v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th 365, may be taken to preclude consideration of non-chemical-test evidence to bolster or corroborate chemical test results, we disapprove it. Having concluded the DMV hearing officer properly admitted the circumstantial, nontest evidence of plaintiff‘s intoxication, we also conclude substantial evidence supported the trial court‘s decision to deny writ relief, thereby sustaining the DMV hearing officer‘s decision to suspend plaintiff‘s license to drive. A driver whose license has been suspended under the administrative per se law can seek review of the DMV‘s decision by seeking a writ of mandate in the trial court. ―In ruling on an application for a writ of mandate following an order of suspension or revocation, a trial court is required to determine, based on its independent judgment, ‗ ―whether the weight of the evidence supported the administrative decision.‖ ‘ ‖ (Lake, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 456.) Following the trial court‘s denial of the writ, the scope of our review on appeal is limited: ―[W]e ‗need only review the record to determine whether the trial court‘s findings are supported by substantial evidence.‘ [Citation.] ‗ ―We must resolve all evidentiary conflicts and draw all legitimate and reasonable inferences in favor of the trial court‘s decision. [Citations.] Where the evidence supports more than one inference, we may not substitute our deductions for the trial court‘s. [Citation.] We may overturn the trial court‘s factual findings only if the evidence before the trial court is insufficient as a matter of law to sustain those findings.‖ ‘ ‖ (Lake, supra, at p. 457.) Applying this standard, we have no trouble concluding substantial evidence supported the trial court‘s ruling, for it acted well within its discretion in rejecting the expert‘s testimony and placing primary emphasis on the four chemical tests that showed plaintiff‘s BAC met or exceeded the statutory threshold at the time plaintiff was driving. Neither the DMV hearing officer nor the trial court was 24 required to accept Williams‘s testimony at face value. (People v. Prince (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 848, 858 [trier of fact ―is permitted to consider the credibility of the expert witnesses, the reasons given for their opinions, and the facts and other matters upon which their opinions are based‖]; cf. CALCRIM No. 332 [instructing the jury it is not required to accept a proffered expert opinion as ―true or correct‖].) Both reasonably relied on circumstantial evidence of plaintiff‘s intoxication—her general appearance, the odor of alcohol about her person, her erratic driving, and her failed field sobriety tests—to support the accuracy of the chemical test results and to reject Williams‘s view of the evidence, including his opinion of a rising BAC, as unduly speculative. 25