California Legal Brief

The Rule of Brown v. Department of Motor Vehicles is that the Department of Motor Vehicles is not required to disclose the identity of a third-party reporter who initiates a driver reexamination proceeding, under circumstances where the reporter's form merely initiates the process but is not relied upon for the ultimate license suspension decision, the driver receives notice and hearing opportunities, and disclosure of the reporter's identity would compromise road safety by deterring future reports.

Appeal from judgment denying petition for writ of mandate in Superior Court, Sacramento County.

Plaintiff Appellant was Richard Louis Brown — the driver whose license was temporarily suspended following a driver reexamination initiated by an anonymous third-party report.

Defendant Respondent was Department of Motor Vehicles — the state agency that conducted the driver reexamination and temporarily suspended appellant's license.

The suit sounded in administrative law/due process violation. Appellant sought a writ of mandate demanding disclosure of the anonymous reporter's identity and criminal prosecution of that person for allegedly providing false information.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that the Department received an anonymous DS 699 driver reexamination request form, notified Brown to submit medical documentation, conducted a reexamination hearing, required Brown to retake written and driving tests after his physician recommended testing, suspended Brown's license when he failed the driving test, but then reinstated his license one day later at a second hearing when a different hearing officer determined the testing was unnecessary given the lack of medical issues identified.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied the petition for writ of mandate, ruling that the public interest in maintaining confidentiality of individuals submitting reexamination forms outweighed the public interest in disclosure under a public interest balancing test.

The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether the Department's nondisclosure of the third-party reporter's identity violated appellant's procedural due process rights.

The Appellate Court held that no due process violation occurred because: (1) there is no per se due process right to disclosure of a reporter's identity when the reporter merely initiates proceedings, analogous to criminal law protections for informants who are not material witnesses; (2) the Department did not rely on the reporter's form for the suspension decision but instead based it on the failed driving test; (3) appellant received adequate notice and hearing opportunities; and (4) under the three-factor Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, the brief license deprivation was counterbalanced by the Department's interest in road safety and the robust procedural safeguards employed.

The case is inapplicable when the Department relies heavily on an anonymous reporter's form as the primary basis for license suspension, when the reporter would be considered a material witness to the proceedings, when adequate notice and hearing procedures are not provided, or when the license suspension is prolonged without prompt review opportunities.

The case leaves open questions regarding what level of reliance on anonymous reports might trigger due process disclosure requirements, whether different due process protections might apply if the Department's procedures were less robust, and what specific statutory or regulatory framework should govern the use of third-party reexamination reports.