SR 05:172 - Laserfiche WebLink

(Manzella v. City of Pleasanton), over emergency response costs in driving under the influence (DUI) related incidents. The County of Santa Clara will be filing an amicus curiae brief that will support the City of Pleasanton's interpretation of the relevant statutes. If the Legal Advocacy Committee does not approve the League's joinder in the amicus brief, the City Attorney's Office recommends that the City Council approve Pleasanton's joinder in the brief. Statement of Facts: In 2003, Steban Allende was driving on a California freeway and caused a traffic accident. Prior to the accident, witnesses had seen him making unsafe lane changes and straddling his car between two lanes. Allende's blood-alcohol content was measure at .15 by breath test. The CHP's emergency response involved 3 CHP officers. The CHP issued Allende an invoice for $360 to cover staff hours charged at $48 per hour for 7.5 hours for accident investigation (response time, on scene investigation, follow up investigation, report writing); vehicle storage; in-custody (field sobriety test, arrest, transportation, booking, chemical tests); traffic control, and other costs. Allende paid $63 of the $360 invoice. Steban Allende and another plaintiff then filed a class action lawsuit in the Alameda County Superior Court against the CHP. Allende and other plaintiffs allege to have been billed by the CHP for emergency response costs that were not costs attributable to the emergency response. Statement of the Issues: At issue is the judicial interpretation of the statutes that authorize governmental entities to seek reimbursement of emergency response costs in DUI related incidents. Specifically, the amicus brief that the County of Santa Cruz intends to file will address when emergency costs can be recovered and what salary costs can be recovered. 1. The Term "Incident": Pursuant to the Government Code, a public entity cannot bill for the expense of an emergency response unless there has been an "incident". Plaintiffs in all of the DUI costs recovery class action suits have contended that an "incident" is limited to an accident. However, public entities, like Pleasanton, have interpreted the statutes to allow recovery in instances other than accidents. In Allende, the trial court opined that the CHP can seek recovery for the expense of an emergency response only when there has been an incident, which the court defined as an accident (i.e., a vehicle collision). Like the trial court, the CHP similarly has equated the term "incident" with an accident and has sought emergency response costs only for accidents. Accordingly the CHP did not provide any briefing to the court that would support the broader statutory interpretation that is supported by many pubic entities, like Pleasanton. The trial court also did not permit amicus briefing on this or any other issue. Allende is significant to governmental entities because many have varying practices regarding what type of conduct triggers recovery under the statutes. In the various class actions filed against cities, plaintiffs have claimed that cities illegally bill for costs as emergency response costs when there has been no "emergency "incident". Because law enforcement agencies throughout the state, including Pleasanton, have interpreted the statutes to permit recovery in instances other than accidents, this case will affect their policies and practices. The amicus brief that will be filed by the County of Santa Clara will seek a broad interpretation of the statutes (to allow costs recovery in instances other than accidents). An SR05:172 Page 2 of 3