Low, Ball & Lynch’s

WEEKLY LAW RESUME

January 12, 2026 Issue   By: Ray Coates

Public Entities - Reimbursement of Emergency Response Costs

California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court

 (January 4, 2026)

Court of Appeal, First District

California Government Code sections 53150 through 53159 permit public agencies to seek reimbursement of costs from any person causing an incident requiring an emergency response as a consequence of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol (DUI).  This case analyzes what qualifies as an “incident” under section 53150, and what type of costs are recoverable.

Plaintiff Esteban Allende caused an accident while driving under the influence of alcohol.  Defendant California Highway Patrol (CHP) responded to the scene.  There were no injuries and minor property damage to the vehicles.  Allende was arrested for driving under the influence.  Subsequently, the CHP billed Allende $360 for its costs relating to the accident.  The time charged related to officer response and  investigation, vehicle storage, traffic control, and “in custody” activities.

Allende paid $63 toward the $360 invoice.  Then he and another person who had received a similar bill for emergency services, filed a class action suit against the CHP.  In the suit, Allende claimed that the CHP improperly billed for services that were not “emergency response” services.  In addition to seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, the complaint alleged several tort claims, including breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 

Allende filed a motion for summary adjudication as to three of the causes of action for declaratory relief, seeking a determination that under section 53150, the CHP could not charge for the cost of the arrest; the cost of services rendered away from the scene of the accident; or the cost of the DUI investigation.  The trial court granted summary adjudication. The trial court held that the CHP could only bill Allende for the expense of the CHP’s emergency response to the accident, that arose directly from the incident.  The trial court was not permitted to recover for officer time responding to the DUI. issues - field sobriety test, making an arrest, preparing reports.

The CHP filed a petition for a write of mandate challenging the trial court’s order.  The First District Court of Appeal vacated the trial court order.

In reviewing the case, the First District initially pointed out that section 53150 et seq. establishes when public agencies can recover emergency response expenses from persons who intentionally or negligently cause incidents requiring an emergency response.  The Court first analyzed what constitutes an “incident” under section 53150, triggering an agency’s right to recover.  The Court rejected the argument that driving under the influence qualifies as an “incident” - regardless of whether the driver causes an accident.  Looking to the plain meaning of the statute and the legislative history, the Court of Appeal held that an incident is any event that proximately causes an emergency response by a public agency.  Although an accident is not necessary to trigger the right to reimbursement; there must be something more than a routine traffic stop for a DUI.

With regard to recoverable costs, the First District found the trial court’s reasoning unworkable.  The Court of Appeal held that many of the services performed by the CHP in responding to the DUI and accident call overlapped.  The Court concluded that the trial court erred when it excluded the costs of activities related to enforcement of the DUI laws.  Thus, costs of responding to the scene; ensuring public safety at the scene; conducting field sobriety tests; removing vehicles; arresting and booking Allende; and writing reports, were all recoverable. 

The Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order granting summary adjudication and to enter a new order consistent with the Court of Appeal’s opinion.

COMMENT

A number of cities in California are facing similar suits from citizens, who claim they are being billed excessive sums for DUI related incidents.  This case helps clarify under what circumstances a public agency may claim costs, and what costs are recoverable. 

____
To order a printed version of this analysis, or change your subscription information, reply to this transmission. Information regarding this and other WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM articles is available from Raymond Coates at (650) 366-4000, [email protected] or at WWW.LOWBALL.COM. The WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM is published fifty-two times a year, and is a complimentary publication of LOW, BALL & LYNCH, Attorneys at Law, a Professional Corporation, with offices in San Francisco, Redwood City and Monterey, California.