 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Taniguchi7/18/1991
I.
The State of Hawaii (State) appeals from an order entered in the District Court of the First Circuit granting Defendant-Appellee Glenn Hisao Taniguchi's (Defendant) motion to dismiss the charge of Refusing To Submit To An Alcohol Content Test in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 286-155 (1985). We affirm.
II.
Defendant was arrested for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor (DUI) on December 7, 1989. After Defendant arrived at the police station, he refused to submit to a breath or blood test and was charged with Refusing To Submit To An Alcohol Content Test in violation of HRS § 286-155.
On February 2, 1990, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charge on the ground that his right to counsel had been violated because he was not given the opportunity to consult with counsel prior to refusing to take a breath or blood test. On September 11, 1990, a hearing was held on Defendant's motion. The sole evidence at the hearing was Defendant's own testimony.
Defendant testified that he arrived at the police station at 10:15 p.m. on December 7, 1989. After arriving at the station, a police officer asked Defendant whether he could read and write English. Defendant answered affirmatively, and the officer then asked Defendant to read and complete HPD Form 245, "Advising Persons Of The Requirements Of The Implied Consent Law."
Defendant testified that he read the form to himself and understood its contents. After reading the form once, he asked the police officer if he could consult with an attorney. The officer responded by telling Defendant, "first fill out the document." Defendant read the form a second time. Again he asked the officer if he could consult with an attorney. The officer responded by telling Defendant, " ust fill out the form and notate [the request] in the Remarks column." Defendant proceeded to reread the form a third time and marked that he refused to take the test. Under the Remarks column Defendant wrote, "I want to consult an attorney as to what I should do." The officer never explained to Defendant that he had no right to consult with an attorney before taking a breath or blood test. After signing the implied consent form, Defendant made a call to his attorney but was unable to reach him.
Defendant acknowledged that the officer never told him he had a right to consult with an attorney. However, Defendant did testify that after he was arrested he thought he had a right to an attorney and he wanted the advice of an attorney as to what he should do.
Following his testimony, Defendant asked the court to dismiss the charge. Defendant argued that even though the officer did not advise him of his Miranda rights, he thought he had a right to an attorney, he asked for an attorney and was not informed that Miranda did not apply to implied consent proceedings.
The State responded that under State v. Severino , 56 Haw. 378, 537 P.2d 1187 (1975), the State is not required to allow the defendant to consult with an attorney prior to submitting to a breath or blood test and no rights of the defendant were violated. The State also contended that Defendant understood the form, thus his refusal was an informed choice.
After hearing arguments, the court granted Defendant's motion. The court stated, " ust the same, the Court feels that [Defendant] should've had an opportunity to talk to an attorney before he signed the form."
III.
On appeal, the State argues that the trial court's ruling was incorrect because a defendant is not entitled to consult with an attorney before he makes a decision r
Page 1 2 3 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|