In Solovij v. Gourley (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 1229, the arresting officer's sworn report stated as justification for the driver's initial stop only that she violated section 22350. Solovij, (87 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1233.) Solovij found the "statement that the driver violated section 22350 is not evidence, it is a legal conclusion." (Ibid.) The facts necessary to support the initial stop were contained exclusively in the unsworn report of the arresting officer. (87 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1233.) Solovij held that because section 13380 requires the arresting officer to set forth all relevant information in the sworn report, the DMV could not rely on the arresting officer's unsworn report, and therefore there was insufficient evidence of probable cause for the arrest. ( Solovij, supra, 87 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1234, 105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 278.) Solovij held the DMV could not rely on the unsworn report of the arresting officer, and therefore there was insufficient evidence of probable cause for the arrest. ( Solovij, supra, 87 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1234.) The Second District, Division Six, affirmed the trial court's grant of an alternative writ on the basis that the unsworn report of an arresting officer was inadmissible in a contested hearing. (Solovij, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 1234.) The arresting officer's sworn report contained no details about his reason for stopping the petitioner, while his unsworn report stated that the car was speeding and weaving within its lane. (Id. at pp. 1231-1232.) The Solovij court found that section 13380 requires the arresting officer to file a sworn report containing "all information relevant to the enforcement action" and the officer had not done so. The facts necessary to support the initial stop could not be considered because they were only recited in the arresting officer's unsworn report. (Solovij, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 1234.) The court distinguished Lake v. Reed (1997) on the basis that Lake considered the unsworn report of a nonarresting officer, whereas in Solovij the issue was whether the arresting officer's unsworn report could be considered. (Ibid.) In short, the administrative hearing officer considered an unsworn arrest report over the driver's objection. The court held that an arresting officer's unsworn report is inadmissible at an administrative hearing. We reasoned that permitting the hearing officer to consider an unsworn report "would unfairly evade" the requirement of section 13880 that "the arresting officer file a sworn report containing 'all information relevant to the enforcement action . . . .' " ( Id., at p. 1234.) Without the arrest report, there was insufficient evidence of probable cause for the driver's arrest. The Court therefore affirmed the trial court's judgment setting aside the DMV's suspension of the driver's license.