 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] State v. Harris8/25/2003
II. Discussion.
On appeal, the State contends "the district court erred in granting [Defendant's] motion to suppress results of the blood test, as such testing is mandated by HRS § 286-163(c), where [Defendant] was the driver injured in a motor vehicle collision, and exhibited signs of intoxication sufficient to establish probable cause for DUI." Opening Brief at 11 (capitalization omitted). Defendant concedes the court erred, and we confirm that it did.
The facts underlying the court's grant of Defendant's motion to suppress were undisputed. "We review the . . . court's ruling on a motion to suppress de novo to determine whether the ruling was 'right' or 'wrong.'" State v. Kauhi, 86 Hawaii 195, 197, 948 P.2d 1036, 1038 (1997)(citation omitted).
In State v. Entrekin, 98 Hawaii 221, 47 P.3d 336 (2002), the Hawaii Supreme Court confronted a case which is factually on all fours with this one. Id. at 223-25, 47 P.3d at 338-40. There, the trial judge -- incidentally, the same trial judge as in our case -- granted a motion to suppress virtually identical, mutatis mutandis, to the one in our case, id. at 224-25, 47 P.3d at 339-40, upon reasoning and conclusions of law virtually identical, mutatis mutandis, to those in our case. Id. at 225, 47 P.3d at 340. In holding that the trial court had erred in granting Entrekin's motion to suppress, the Entrekin court rejected the trial court's conclusions of law and the reasoning supporting them. Id. at 226-33, 47 P.3d at 341-48. Thereupon, the supreme court held that
the district court erred in ruling that HRS § 286-163 was inapplicable to the present matter on the basis that Entrekin was the only person injured as a result of the vehicular accident in which he was involved. We further hold that HRS § 286-163 applies to drivers injured or killed in a single-vehicle collision in which no other person is injured.
Id. at 229, 47 P.3d at 344. The Entrekin court also held that "HRS ch. 286, Part VII does not require the police to comply with the prerequisites of HRS § 286-151 in order to obtain breath, blood, or urine samples pursuant to HRS § 286-163[,]"id. at 230, 47 P.3d at 345, and that the action of the police was not unconstitutional. Id. at 233, 47 P.3d at 348.
III. Conclusion.
Hence, Entrekin is controlling in this case and dispositive. Accordingly, we vacate the February 4, 2002 findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order of the court, and remand for entry of an order denying Defendant's January 11, 2002 motion to suppress blood test result, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Page 1 2 3 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|