 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Shivers12/17/1986
ing's June 1985 permit was valid and Ching was qualified to operate the Intoxilyzer on September 10, 1985.
Regarding administrative rules and regulations, they "are subject to the same principles of construction as apply to the construction of statutes." Life of the Land, Inc. v. The West Beach Development Corp., 63 Haw. 529, 531, 631 P.2d 588, 590 (1981). A cardinal rule of statutory construction is that "where the language of the law in question is plain and unambiguous, construction by this court is inappropriate and our duty is only to give effect to the law according to its plain and obvious meaning." Strouss v. Simmons, 66 Haw. 32, 50, 657 P.2d 1004, 1016
(1982) (quoting In re Hawaiian Telephone Co., 61 Haw. 572, 577-78, 608 P.2d 383, 387 (1980)). See also Chun v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 5 Haw. App. 290, 687 P.2d 564 (1984).
The effective date of the Rules is November 27, 1981. Section 11-111-4(1) plainly and unambiguously provides that a county police department employee may qualify as an operator of breath testing instruments if he meets one of the three requirements specified in subsections (A), (B), and (C). Subsection (B) states that a person must have "not less than one (1) year's experience in the operation of the approved breath testing instrument to be utilized" as of the effective date of the Rules. Having operated the Intoxilyzer in 1979, 1980, and 1981, Ching met the subsection (B) qualification. Therefore, the issuance of an operator's permit to Ching in June 1985 was valid.
The facts in Nakahara do not parallel those in this case. In Nakahara, the police officer failed to meet the eight-hour training requirement under subsection (A) and the record did not disclose that he was qualified as an Intoxilyzer operator under subsection (B) or (C).
Contrary to Defendant's contentions, under § 11-111-4(1), whether Ching completed an eight-hour training program or whether he had more than a year's experience after November 27, 1981, is irrelevant since he qualified under subsection (B).
We hold that since Ching was a qualified Intoxilyzer operator with a permit on September 10, 1985, the circuit court properly denied Defendant's motion to suppress the Intoxilyzer test result.
Affirmed.
Disposition
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|