 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Andres v. Administrative Director of the Courts8/1/2002
Petitioner-Appellant Melvin Andres (Andres) appeals from the September 7, 2000 Decision and Order Affirming Administrative Revocation entered by District Court Judge Tenney Z. Tongg. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On April 8, 2000, Andres was arrested for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
The Administrative Review Decision dated April 13, 2000, noted that Andres "refused to submit to a breath and/or blood test after being informed of the sanctions" and affirmed the administrative revocation of Andres' driver's license from May 9, 2000, to May 8, 2001. The Hearing Officer's June 28, 2000 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision reduced the revocation period to three months because Andres had taken an alcohol concentration test.
RELEVANT STATUTES AND PRECEDENT
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 286-254(a)(3) (1993) states as follows: "The notice of administrative revocation shall provide, at a minimum and in clear language, the following general information relating to administrative revocation: . . . hat criminal charges filed pursuant to section 291-4 may be prosecuted concurrently with the administrative action."
HRS § 286-255(a) (Supp. 1999) requires the arresting officer to inform the arrestee "of the sanctions under this part [XIV, §§ 286-251 through 286-266], including the sanction for refusing to take a breath or blood test."
HRS § 286-257(b)(1)(C)(Supp. 1999) states as follows:
Sworn statements of law enforcement officials.
(b) Whenever a person is arrested for a violation of section 291-4 or 291-4.4 and refuses to submit to a test to determine alcohol concentration in the blood, the following shall be immediately forwarded to the director:
(1) A copy of the arrest report and the sworn statement of the arresting officer stating facts that establish that: . . . .
(C) The arrestee was informed of the sanctions of this part [XIV, §§ 286-251 through 286-266], that criminal charges may be filed, and the probable consequences of refusing to be tested for concentration of alcohol in the blood[.]
In State v. Wilson, 92 Hawaii 45, 987 P.2d 268 (1999), the Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the granting of a motion to suppress the results of the blood alcohol test because Wilson had been told that a person who consented to the blood test and failed it would have his or her driving privileges revoked for only three months whereas, in fact, a person who consented to the blood test and failed it would have his or her driving privileges revoked for anywhere from three months to one year. In other words, the information given to Wilson was materially inaccurate.
In State v. Feldhacker, 76 Hawaii 354, 357, 878 P.2d 169, 172 (1994), the Hawaii Supreme Court concluded that " ecause the Notice contains an improper and erroneous statement of a defendant's rights, it is void and must be modified to comply with the requirements of HRS § 286-253."
DISCUSSION
A.
When he was arrested and before he decided to take a breath and/or blood test, Andres was advised that " riminal charges may be filed under section 291-4, HRS, Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor[.]" At the hearing, counsel for Andres asked the court "to take judicial notice that [criminal charges] are always filed." The Hearing Officer responded that "this is a Statewide Office and quite often in outer island jurisdictions they don't file a State case." Counsel for Andres retorted, "All right, but on Oahu, they do. Our Prosecutor files every one. We're on Oahu."
In his decision, the Hearing Officer c
Page 1 2 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|