For many aging seniors, their driver’s license represents independence and self-sufficiency. Families and friends, however, may worry failing health and slowed reflexes will make driving dangerous for a loved one and others on the road – but could be reluctant to raise what is likely to be an emotionally charged issue.

One option available is to submit a confidential Request for Driver Reexamination with the California Department of Motor Vehicles. Once received, the DMV can ask the senior driver to demonstrate that he or she can drive safely. The DMV won’t disclose the identity of the person filing the request to the driver without the reporter’s consent.

That promise of confidentiality, however, was recently challenged in a Sacramento County lawsuit that was taken up to the California Court of Appeal (Brown v Department of Motor Vehicles.)

In June of 2024, Richard Louis Brown received a letter from the DMV notifying him that it was “necessary for the Department to review your driving qualifications.” After that review, it said, “you may be required to complete a written, vision, or driving test and/or you may be required to appear virtually by video or by telephone or in-person.”

The letter warned him that his license would be suspended if he did not provide a medical form filled out by a physician.

The doctor who completed the form said Brown “did not exhibit issues affecting his driving.” Nevertheless, in response to a question asking if he would recommend that the DMV give Brown a driving test, the doctor checked the “Yes” box.

A department hearing officer met with Brown remotely in August of 2024. They reviewed Brown’s medical history, and Brown assured the officer that he did not take any prescription drugs or consume alcohol. The hearing officer then told Brown he would have to take written and driving tests.

Brown passed the written test but failed the driving test. The department suspended his driver’s license, saying it was doing so to protect him and the public against a possible accident. It also informed him that he could appeal.

A second remote hearing was held a few days later with a different hearing officer, who overturned Brown’s suspension. This officer noted that Brown’s only medical problem was high blood pressure, so there was no reason for the doctor to recommend Brown be tested.

With no basis to require Brown to take the driving test, the hearing officer said, his performance on that test was irrelevant and should not have led to suspension of his license.

Brown sued the DMV in Sacramento County Superior Court, seeking an order to release the name of the person “who filed a fraudulent request for driver reexamination” against him. It also asked the court to hold this person “criminally responsible for providing false information” to the DMV.

The DMV opposed the petition. A safety manager with the agency told the court that the reexamination form asks the person submitting the report to provide relevant medical information along with any available medical records.

The form says the reporter can request that their name not be revealed, and the department will comply “to the fullest extent possible.” The safety manager said this was to protect reporters against retaliation by drivers, which would deter reports.

In November of 2024, the trial court denied Brown’s petition. It concluded that “the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of individuals submitting request for reexamination forms outweighs the public interest in disclosure” of their names.

Brown appealed the trial court’s ruling, saying the DMV’s practice of conducting a reexamination “based solely on an anonymous complaint, without any corroborating evidence, violates procedural fairness and due process requirements.”

The appellate justices noted that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution says that states may not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” That includes the right to have a driver’s license.

But, they pointed out, “the extent to which due process relief will be available depends on a careful and clearly articulated balancing of the interests at stake in each context.”

Even with the use of a nondisclosed reporter, the justices said, the careful process followed by the DMV in Brown’s case – requiring a medical examination, holding a hearing, having him take written and driving tests, then holding a second hearing – “indicates a low risk of erroneous deprivation” of a driver’s license.

The DMV did not rely on information provided by the person who requested that Brown’s ability to drive be reexamined, the justices pointed out. The hearing officer who suspended his license did so because of the statement by Brown’s physician and Brown’s failure in the driving test. The department’s prompt second review, and reversal of the suspension, demonstrated that due process was followed, they said.

The justices affirmed the trial court’s decision in favor of the DMV, with each party bearing its costs on appeal.

By Jessica Stemple