4DCA Division 1 Oral Argument - 2026/09/16 - Sep 16, 2026

argument

4DCA Division 1 Oral Argument - 2026/09/16

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One 5h 6m 1 speaker 8 chapters transcribed 3 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What procedural instructions are given to the attorneys at the start of the oral argument?

Unknown 8:31

Morning. Like everybody should have the last time. Oh, please.

Unknown 10:00

Please make sure you adjust the podium using the switcher on the right side so the microphone is pointing at your chin. If you don't, the justices will not be able to hear you and they'll stop you with an argument. The appellate table is here to my right. If you use the restroom, you have to come back through screen and come inside the courtroom. And while court's in session, please keep talking a little down to a minimum. Any questions for me before you get started? Thank you.

Unknown 11:32

Yes,

Unknown 11:57

doctor.

Unknown 12:06

Yes. All right.

Unknown 15:07

Thank you, Maria.

Unknown 18:43

Yes. Yeah.

Unknown 20:07

Thank

Unknown 20:19

you very much. Please have a seat. Welcome to the California Court of Appeal. joined by two stellar colleagues. On my right, we have David Rubin, and on my left, we have Justice Erin Bermudez. We are going to begin with the matter of Howard v. State of California. When you're ready, please come to the podium and let us know if you want to reserve any time for rebuttal.

Rhea Mariano 20:51

Good morning, Your Honors. Yes, I would like to reserve some five minutes for rebuttal, please.

Unknown 20:56

All

Rhea Mariano 20:57

right.

Unknown 21:00

And if you can state your appearance and you may begin when you're ready.

Rhea Mariano 21:05

Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning, Your Honors. Rhea Mariano for the Appellant Department of Motor Vehicles. May it please the court, the court should reverse the trial court's ruling because there is no evidence of advocacy by the Administrator Per Se hearing officer. In this matter, the respondent, Howard, contends that the trial court's ruling is considered under the doctrine of implied findings. But in order for the doctrine of implied findings to apply, there needs to be factual findings and it must be based on substantial evidence. In this case, there is no substantial evidence of advocacy. What we look at is The only act that the respondent has identified is the hearing officer's granting of the continuance.

Rhea Mariano 22:03

And the purpose of that continuance is to obtain a video footage from the San Diego Sheriff's Department. That video footage is very relevant and was subpoenaed in advance of the hearing. If we look at the timeline, the subpoena was issued as soon as the hearing was set in November.

Unknown 22:23

So why doesn't that, looking at it from a slightly different perspective, it was subpoenaed. It didn't show up. So it's time to move forward with the hearing. And then the hearing officer continues it. It could look like the hearing officer was, that's a form of advocacy, trying to give the law enforcement, whoever it was, kind of an opportunity to put in more evidence than there was.

Rhea Mariano 22:59

Not at all, Your Honor, because under Boussard and under the government code and Title 13, a hearing officer can grant a continuance on the motion of a party or on the hearing officer's own motion. In Boussard, the facts before the appellate court was a situation where the hearing officer continued the hearing so that they could obtain testimony, live testimony from the arresting officer. In this case, there was an outstanding subpoena And there is no advocacy on behalf of either party because the video footage of Howard's arrest would show what actually took place between the officers and the motorist. Here we have the presumption that the officer's sworn statements are correct. However, video footage can contradict that, potentially.

Rhea Mariano 23:53

We don't know. The hearing officer did not know. In the recent case of Meyers v. Department of Motor Vehicles, the appellate court, just very recently in April, emphasized the importance of video footage. In that case, that issue was a 15-minute observation period.

Unknown 24:10

Can we go back? Yes, sir. For a moment, is the record clear as to who requested the continuance?

Rhea Mariano 24:17

The record is, I believe it's on the torch transcript. 117 is the form, and there is a request for continuance, and it said it was made orally. It did not say that the hearing officer requested it herself. Based on the form, it certainly leads to the conclusion that someone from the Department of Motor Vehicles requested it. So Howard's

Unknown 24:41

argument... Is that the inference that you want the court to reach, that it was...