# CA Law: Suspended license & writ of mandate **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 21, 2011, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-law-suspended-license-writ-of-mandate/572142 "2011-02-21T20:26:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-law-suspended-license-writ-of-mandate/572142/1 "2011-02-21T20:26:04Z")
In California, suspension of the driving privilege can be overturned by the court’s Writ of Mandate. Part of the standard language for petition for the writ reads: “At all times herein mentioned, the petitioner was the holder of a valid California driver’s license…” My question: why is this important? Is a driver not entitled to petition for a writ if his license expires and gets renewed/reinstated between, say, the citation date and the suspension date? I don’t see anything covering this in the vehicle code, the civil procedure code, or the rules of court. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-law-suspended-license-writ-of-mandate/572142/2 "2011-02-22T04:20:40Z")
I’m not sure what you’re asking here, but I’ll add some info that may help you in clarifying your question. You’re asking about a _writ of mandamus_, or as I understand it is called in California, a _writ of mandate_. See the Wikipedia entry [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandamus), but understand that generally speaking, a writ of mandamus orders a governmental body to do something within its jurisdiction: for example, in the case of the DMV, to reinstate a driver’s license. More directly to the point of your question, I’d guess that the California petitioner could apply for a writ of mandate to reinstate his or her license after any suspension was over, but before receiving word that it was officially over–in other words, if the California DMV forgot to officially reinstate the license after the suspension period, the license-holder could apply for a writ of mandate to force the DMV to end the suspension and officially notify the license-holder. I doubt very much that a writ of mandate could overcome a lawfully-imposed suspension, but I see no reason why it could not be used to reinstate a license if the DMV neglected to after the suspension is over. Just some thoughts and guesses, anyway. I’d be interested in hearing from any California legal Dopers on the question. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-law-suspended-license-writ-of-mandate/572142/3 "2011-02-22T07:41:18Z")
The writ of mandate is the final means of appeal for any administrative action by a California agency; in the case of the DMV, it is used to reverse suspension or revocation of the driving privilege. It’s usually requested in the case of DUI suspensions, but is definitely available in the case of suspensions for negligent operation (“points”) – that is not in question. The court must find that the agency acted improperly. ETA And I found the answer, discussed below. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-law-suspended-license-writ-of-mandate/572142/4 "2011-02-22T10:38:38Z")
Never mind, I found it. The importance lies in the standard of review: in _Berlinghieri v. DMV_, the appeals court found: > [@](#): > > If the decision of an administrative agency will substantially affect a “fundamental vested right,” then the trial court must not only examine the administrative record for errors of law, but also must exercise its independent judgment upon the evidence. A “fundamental vested right,” in this context, is not a “fundamental right” as in a due process case, but merely a legitimately acquired right that has fundamental importance in a person’s life. > [@](#): > > When an administrative decision affects a right which has been legitimately acquired or is otherwise ‘vested,’ and when that right is of a fundamental nature from the standpoint of its economic aspect or its ‘effect … in human terms and the importance … to the individual in the life situation,’ then a full and independent judicial review of that decision is indicated because ‘[the] abrogation of the right is too important to the individual to relegate it to exclusive administrative extinction.’ If the petitioner does not have a license, then there is no “right,” and the court’s scope of review is correspondingly diminished.