 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Andres v. Administrative Director of the Courts8/1/2002
ited the notice requirement of HRS § 286-254(a)(3) " hat criminal charges filed pursuant to section 291-4 may be prosecuted concurrently with the administrative action" and decided that granting the request to change the word "may" to "shall" would be "outside of" the "limited jurisdiction" of a Hearing Officer.
Andres contends that the district court erred in upholding the Hearing Officer's decision. Andres argues that " n arrestee has the right to be properly and correctly informed under the law, i.e., that criminal charges will be filed." (Emphasis in original.) We disagree. Conformity with the applicable statutes is sufficient.
HRS § 286-254(a)(3) requires notice " hat criminal charges filed pursuant to section 291-4 may be prosecuted concurrently with the administrative action." HRS § 286-257(b)(1)(C) requires information "that criminal charges may be filed, and the probable consequences of refusing to be tested for concentration of alcohol in the blood[.]" In other words, when speaking of "the probable consequences of refusing to be tested for concentration of alcohol in the blood[,]" the statute is speaking of consequences other than criminal charges. When speaking of criminal charges, it requires information "that criminal charges may be filed[.]"
B.
In this case, Andres was informed that " f you choose to take a test and the test result is below the legal limit, administrative revocation proceedings will be terminated."
Andres argues that the district court erred in upholding the Hearing Officer's finding that an arrestee has no right to be informed of Hawaii's legal limit for alcohol in the blood of a driver of a motor vehicle. Andres argues that the warning was insufficient because it did not inform him of the exact percentage of the legal limit. We disagree. The statutes and the precedent do not require such detailed information. Wilson "mandates accurate warnings." Wilson, 92 Hawaii at 49, 987 P.2d at 272 (emphasis in original). In this case, there were accurate warnings.
C.
Andres contends that the district court erred in upholding the Hearing Officer's finding that Andres was informed of the sanctions of HRS Chapter 286, Part XIV, and that no evidence to the contrary was offered. More specifically, Andres argues that the relevant statutes "mean that an arrestee must be informed of not merely the consequences or probable consequences of refusing a chemical test, but the other sanctions under the statutory scheme as well." In effect, Andres contends that all relevant parts of the statute should be read to the arrestee.
Specifically, Andres points out that the testimony of the arresting officer established
that Andres was not informed of all of the sanctions for taking a chemical test and failing, i.e.: (1) the criteria for, and the restrictions on, a conditional permit and the consequences of violating those restrictions (H.R.S. §286-264(d) (1993)), and (2) the requirements for relicensing (H.R.S. §286-265 (1993)) following revocation (H.R.S. § 286-261(b)). (Footnotes omitted.)
We conclude the statutes and precedent do not require such detailed information. The precedent of Feldhacker, 76 Hawaii at 357, 878 P.2d at 172, is not relevant because Andres is not complaining about "an improper and erroneous statement."
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we affirm the September 7, 2000 Decision and Order Affirming Administrative Revocation.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, August 1, 2002.
Page 1 2 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|