 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kodani v. Administrative Director of the Courts8/27/2002
In this appeal, Petitioner-Appellant Kert-Pono Kodani (Kodani) urges us to reverse the Judgment on Appeal and the Decision and Order Affirming Administrative Revocation of his driver's license, both entered by the District Court of the First Circuit, Judge Colette Y. Garibaldi presiding, on December 22, 2000. Kodani contends that his driver's license was improperly revoked for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor because the arresting police officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop Kodani's vehicle on the evening of September 24, 2000. We agree.
The Hawaii Supreme Court has stated that
n determining the reasonableness of wholly discretionary automobile stops, this court has repeatedly applied the standard set forth in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 [88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889] (1968). Guided by Terry, we stated in State v. Barnes:
To justify an investigative stop, short of arrest based on probable cause, "the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion." The ultimate test in these situations must be whether from these facts, measured by an objective standard, a man of reasonable caution would be warranted in believing that criminal activity was afoot and that the action taken was appropriate. State v. Bolosan, 78 Hawaii 86, 92, 890 P.2d 673, 679 (1995) (citations omitted).
In State v. Spencer, 67 Haw. 95, 95-96, 678 P.2d 1081, 1081-82 (1984), the Hawaii Supreme Court held that the offense of unlawful exhibition of speed or acceleration in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291C-103(a) was not established by evidence that the tires of a defendant's vehicle screeched when the defendant shifted from first gear into second gear at twenty miles per hour, while making a left turn from a stopped position at a traffic light. Adopting the Colorado Supreme Court's construction of the term "exhibition of speed or acceleration[,]" our supreme court held that the conduct prohibited by the "exhibition of speed or acceleration" language of HRS § 291C-103(a) was the "intentional participation in operating motor vehicles competitively to test the swiftness of the vehicles involved[,]" as well as "an individual's deliberate drawing of public attention to the vehicle's quality for swiftness." Id. at 96, 678 P.2d at 1082 (block quote format omitted).
In 1989, the Hawaii legislature enacted Act 151, which amended HRS § 291C-103 to add the definition of "exhibition of speed or acceleration" currently found in subsection (d) of HRS § 291C-103 (1993), to be consistent with the supreme court's construction of the term in Spencer, 1989 Haw. Sess. L. Act 151, § 1, at 280. That subsection currently reads:
"Exhibition of speed or acceleration" means the sudden acceleration of a vehicle resulting in the screeching of the vehicle's tires which is done to intentionally draw the attention of persons present toward the vehicle.
The legislative committee reports on House Bill No. 148, which was signed into law as Act 151, reflect that, as originally introduced, the bill proposed "to define an 'exhibition of speed' to include but not be limited to excessive acceleration causing a vehicle's tires to screech loudly or lose traction on a public street or highway." See Hse. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 490, in 1989 House Journal, at 1021. However, the bill was subsequently amended by the House Judiciary Committee, which explained:
Your Committee received testimony from representatives of the Honolulu Police Department and the State Department of Transportation supporting this bill. This testi
Page 1 2 3 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|