 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Story12/20/2002
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Plaintiff-appellant State of Hawaii [hereinafter the prosecution] appeals the January 4, 2002 pretrial order, issued by the district court of the second circuit, the Honorable Paul Horikawa presiding, granting defendant-appellee Craig Aaron Story's (Story) motion to suppress evidence, specifically a blood test, obtained pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 286-163 (Supp. 2000). On appeal, the prosecution challenges two of the district court's findings of fact, as set forth below:
19. Officer Correa neither requested nor demanded that Mr. Saribay submit to a test of breath or blood to determine the alcoholic concentration his blood, breath or urine.
28. Officer Correa requested that a sample of Defendant's blood be drawn for purposes of an investigation of a motor vehicle accident and not as part of an investigation as to whether Defendant was driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
The prosecution also argues that the district court erred in granting Story's motion to suppress the results of the blood test because: (1) a bicycle is a "vehicle" for purposes of HRS § 286-163(a), and (2) there was sufficient probable cause for the officer to request a blood draw pursuant to HRS § 286-163(c). Story argues that the district court did not clearly err in its findings of fact and that it properly ruled that HRS § 286-163 was inapplicable because a bicycle is not a "vehicle" for purposes of the Hawaii Highway Safety Act and there was insufficient probable cause, as the only factor indicating that a DUI had occurred was the odor of liquor.
Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we hold that: (1) the district court did not clearly err with respect to finding of fact #19 because the record does not lack substantial evidence to support it; (2) the district court clearly erred with respect to finding of fact #28 because the record was replete with evidence that Officer Correa was investigating a violation of HRS § 291-4 (DUI) and the record lacked substantial evidence to the contrary; (3) HRS § 286-163(a) is applicable to this case because although a bicycle is not a "vehicle" pursuant to the Hawaii Highway Safety Act (HRS § 286), under the plain language and legislative history of HRS § 286-163(a), this does not prevent the police from obtaining a blood sample when there has been a collision and the police have probable cause to believe a DUI violation has occurred; and (4) HRS § 286-163(c) is applicable to this case because the police had probable cause to believe that a violation of HRS § 291-4 occurred based on the odor of liquor emanating from Story and the nature of the collision. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the district court's pretrial order granting Story's motion to suppress the results of the blood test is vacated and this case remanded for further proceedings.
Page 1 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|