San Diego DUI and DMV defense attorneys constantly try to remind the local office of important laws.

After the Solovij case was decided, DMV sent out that 3 page memo to all law enforcement agencies dated June 13, 2001 from Roger E. Hagen.

Page 3 has the chart "Examples of Probable Cause" listing two categories: Insufficient and Sufficient examples.

In the Insufficient Examples are listed:

Erratic driving
Weaving
Illegal maneuver
Illegal turn
Reckless Driving
Almost Caused Accident
Improper lane usage
Unsafe lane change
Speeding or driving in violation of Section 22350; basic speed

While "following too close" is not mentioned specifically, certainly it is conclusory, as are many other insufficient examples which must be more detailed and specific.

MacDonald v. Guiterrez ' California Supreme Court may have relieved the officer of including ALL information relevant to the enforcement action holding that ONLY * "technical omissions" in a DS 367 may be supplemented or explained by the unsworn report.

That is different from substantive or material omissions, affecting the Respondent's substantial rights.

DMV has the Burden of Proof to lawfully and properly establish Lawful Arrest, Reasonable Cause & Probable Cause (PC) - a conclusory objection is appropriate.

Respondent's substantial rights are affected by any failure of the cop to comply with his duty to provide relevant info re: PC.

* Technical is defined as immaterial, not affecting substantial rights, without substance. [Englebretson v. Industrial Accident Commission 170 Cal. 793, 151 P. 421, 422; Black's Law Dictionary 4th Ed. p. 1632]

MacDonald pointed out the problem at the time of Solovi:

"The problem is that the form designed by DMV gives the arresting officer only 2 and a half lines to describe the facts and circumstances..."

But now that problem is gone.

DMV improved is form giving the officer a full 8 1/2 by 11" page with 16 to 18 lines in order to DESCRIBE IN DETAIL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, not provide a conclusion without foundational or underlying facts, specific and supportive of that conclusion.

Admissibility may have been slightly relaxed under MacDonald but not unlimited. Daniels v. DMV still demands a "showing by substantial competent evidence of facts supporting a suspension." [33 Cal. 3d 532, 536]

There's a balance between the California Evidence Code, the Vehicle Code, including section 13380 and the Government Code.

Without overruling Daniels, MacDonald limited itself to that 2 1/2 lines probem:
"(We) must not lose sight of the reason for the 'slight relaxation' of the rules of evidence applicable to an APS review hearing..."

DMV needs to be remembered that the APS proceedings are "relaxed" but only "slightly relaxed."

Not completely relaxed!!