Case Title: Custer v. Administrative Director of the Courts

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2006-10-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAW LIBRARY

+ NOT_FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

 

No. 26192

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘Z6] z
=F 3
x

CURTIS C. CUSTER, Petitioner-Appellant,
vs. &

ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS, STATE OF sBWAI'T,|
‘Respondent-Appellee

 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(JRO3-0019; Original Case No. 03-00586)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

Noon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)

 

Petitioner-Appellant Curtis C. Custer ("Custer”)
appeals from the Judgment on Appeal of the District Court of the
First Circuit! (“district court") filed on October 10, 2003,
which affirmed Respondent-Appellee Administrative Director of the
Courts’ one-year revocation of Custer’s driver’s license.

on appeal, Custer argues that the district court erred
by: (1) affirming the license revocation decision of the
Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office (“ADLRO”),
because ADLRO lacked jurisdiction over Custer due to the
arresting officer's disnissal of the license revocation
proceeding against him; (2) holding that Custer had not been
“denied both his [constitutional] rights to a hearing on the
ADLRO access restrictions (apparently requiring that all
prospective attendees, including the hearing respondent and his

counsel, sign in and present identification in order to attend a

+ the Honorable Fa" auuga To'oto’o presided

 

oan
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
ADLRO hearing) and his rights to a public hearing... (J"? (3)
holding that Custer had not been denied due process of law

despite the fact that ADLRO review hearings from an ADLRO licens

 

revocations are conducted (a) in de nove fashion, and (b) without
following any established procedure, in violation of the Hawai‘
and U.S. Constitutions and Hawai‘ Revised Statutes (“HRS”) 55
2918-31 through 2918-50 (administrative license revocation
process); (4) holding that the °HPD-3968” implied consent form
(for alcohol content or drug testing) was not fatally defective
in (a) failing to inform custer that he had a legal right to
withdraw his consent to alcohol or drug testing, (b) failing to
fully inform Custer of the necessary requirements for. ADLRO to
revoke a driver's license, where an alcohol or drug test is
refused, and (c) failing to inform Custer that a revocation of
his driver's License would also deprive him of the ability to use
a moped or a watercraft; (5) holding that HRS $ 291E-34(a) (2)
(Supp. 2001)? (requiring that a notice of administrative
revocation of a driver’s license explain in “clear language” the

distinction between an administrative revocation and a criminal

 

 

+ HRS § 291E-34(a) (2) (Supp. 2002) provides in pertinent part

(a) The notice of
minimus and in el
relat

   

udninistrative revocation shall provide, at a
Language, the following genersi information
ing to administrative revocation:

 

 

(2) An explanation of the distinction between adninistrative
Fevocation and a suspension or revocation imposed under
section 251B-81 of 2918-61-5-

    
 

\OT_FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

 

License suspension or revocation pursuant to HRS § 291E-61 (Supp.
2003)? (which prohibits operating a vehicle under the influence
and (6) failing to

 

of an intoxicant)) had not been violate
reverse the ADLRO hearing officer’s ruling on account of the
hearing officer’s improper citation of unpublished district court
opinions arising from ADLRO appeals.

Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we hold that all
six of Custer’s arguments in the instant appeal have been :
previously addressed by this court and found to be without
merit. As such, the district court's Judgment on Appeal is

 

2 uRS § 2918-61 (Supp. 2003) was in effect at the tine of Custer’s
March 7, 2003 arrest

+ Ses suse,
‘As to Argunent No. 1 in the instant appeal: See Guster v. Admin. Dir, of the

Gouree, 106 Hawai'i 350, 358, 120 P.3d 249, 257 (2008)

[As to Argument No. 2 in the instant appeal: See Ereitas v. Admin, Dir, of the
Courte, 108 Hawal‘l 31, 40, 116 P.34 €73, 682 (2008)

 

83,

 

As to Argument No. 3 in the instant appeal: See id. at 44-45, 116 P.3d at
Dunaway v. Adsin, Dir. of the courts,

686-87); gee also Dunaway ¥. sits, 108 Hawai'i at 7
117 e.34 Tos, Ine (2008)

‘As to Argunent No. 4 in the instant appeal: at 85-87, 127 F.3d at
asco peal: See id.

As to Argument No, $ in the instant appeal: See Ad. at 87, 117 P.3¢ at 118.

As to Argument No, 6 in the instant appeal: See Freitas, 108 Hawai'i at 46-
49, 116 Besa at 688-89,

As to Arguments Nos. 2 through € of the instant appeal, see alee Guster, 108
Hawai'i at 353-54, 120 P.3d at 252-53.
   

* NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *
affirmed. Therefore,

IT 18 HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment on Appeal of the
district court is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, October 31, 2006.

on the briefs:
Earle A. Partington Wi

for Petitioner-Appellant .
Curtis C. Custer StiaAevise

Girard 0. Lau,

Deputy Attorney General, Preter Cob amcony Qrrn.

for Respondent -Appellee
Administrative Director of

the Courts, State of Hawai'i rN

Gems, Dida tr