In Cantrell v. Zolin (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 128, this court opined, albeit in dicta, that a statement under circumstances identical to this case would be inadmissible hearsay. There, the arresting officer was not the officer who observed Cantrell driving. ( Id. at pp. 131-132.) Only the sworn written report of the arresting officer was admitted at the administrative hearing. ( Id. at p. 131.) The observing officer did not submit a written report, but the information he conveyed to the arresting officer was contained in the arresting officer's report. (Ibid.) The only objection raised by Cantrell was the hearsay statement of the observing officer was not admissible to prove reasonable cause to believe Cantrell had been driving under the influence. ( Id. at p. 132.) The Court held the statement was admissible to prove the fact the officer had reasonable cause to believe that Cantrell had been driving because it was not offered to prove the truth of the matter stated, i.e., that Cantrell had been driving erratically, but was offered to prove the officer had reasonable cause to believe Cantrell was driving under the influence. ( Id. at pp. 132-133.) However, we recognized the statement would have been inadmissible to prove Cantrell was in fact driving a motor vehicle. ( Id. at p. 133, fn. 2.)