Case Title: Leon-Guerrero v. Administrative Director of the Courts, State of Hawaii

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2008-03-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAW UBRARY

 

"++ NOT_FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’

 

HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *
No. 26853

wae

¥
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE oF HaWar'r |8|

 

 

f a
ce 5
SASHA A, LEON-GUERRERO, Petitioner-Appellant, Z2}m fm
Bs = 9
ve. Ee
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS, STATE OF HAWAML, = &

Respondent-Appellee.

 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(3R04-0020; ORIGINAL CASE NO, 04-01397)

 

(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, and Duffy, JJ.
and’ Acoba, J., dissenting)

Petitioner-Appellant Sasha A. Leon-Guerrero (“Leon-
Guerrero”) appeals from the September 13, 2004 judgment of the
district court of the first circuit! affirming the August 2, 2004
administrative revocation of her driver’s license by Respondent-
Appellee Adninistrative Director of the Courts, State of Hawai'i
(“the Director”), acting through a hearing officer of the
Adninistrative Driver’s License Revocation Office (ADLRO).

On appeal, Leon-Guerrezo argues tha!

 

(1) the district
court erred in affirming the hearing officer's decision to deny
(a) the general public full and open access and (b) Leon-Guerrero
her own hearing on the validity of the security procedure at the
RDLAO; (2) the district court erred in ruling that Leon-Guerrero
had not been denied her due process rights when the hearing
officer (a) conducted the hearing in a de novo fashion and

declined to follow respondents’ proposed procedure in

 

+ the onorable Willian A. Cardwell presided.
 

NOT _FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
contradiction to Hawai'i Revised Statutes ("HRS") § 2916-38(a),
which provides that the revocation hearing will “review the
[administration decision],” (b) did not make known a uniform
conmon procedure in advance of the hearing, (c) admitted the
entize ADLRO file and police report into evidence, and (d)
disregarded the procedure set forth in HRS chapter 2926, Part
IIT, which requires a valid chemical test result over 0.08 or a

refusal to take a chemical test as a jurisdictional prerequisite

 

for a valid administrative license hearing; (3) the district
court erred in upholding the revocation even though the
“sanctions for Use of Intoxicants While Operating a Vehicle &
Implied Consent for Testing HPD-396B” form (“Implied Consent
Form”) (a) failed to inform Leon-Guerrero that she had a right to
withdraw her implied consent to a blood or breath test, (b)
implied that the only issue in an administrative revocation is
whether the result of her blood alcohol content (“BAC”) test is
0.08 or is refused, and (c) failed to inform Leon-Guerrero that
the word “vehicle” in HRS § 2918-1 (Supp. 2004) includes “vessel”
and moped”; (4) the district court erred in holding that the
wNotice of Administrative Revocation” does not violate HRS §
2918-34(a) (2) (Supp. 2004),? inasmuch as it does not adequately

+ RS § 2918-3418) provides:
(a) The notice of adpinistrative revocation shall provide,
at a minimin and in Clear language, the following general

 

information
(2) thes
(2)
evocation ands suspension of revocation imposed under section
ese Gis; end
(3) That criminal charg

 

ing to administrative revocation:
tutory authority for administrative revocation;

 

 

 

filed pursuant to section 2916-61
(continued.

 
‘0 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
explain the distinction between administrative revocation and
criminal suspension; (5) the district court erred in upholding
the hearing officer's admission of the statement of the
Intoxilyzer Supervisor because the statement does not explicitly
state that the intoxilyzer was properly maintained in accordance
with HRS $ 2916-36a(2) (C) (Supp. 2004); (6) the hearing officer
erred in citing to unpublished district court decisions; (7) the
district court erred in affirming the hearing officer’s decision
to sustain the license revocation although the Intoxilyzer
Supervisor, Donald W. Stafford (“Intoxilyzer Supervisor), who
was subpoenaed, failed to appear for three hearings; (8) the
district court erred in upholding the revocation although her
involvement in the accident affected her performance in the
Standard Field Sobriety Tests (“sobriety tests”).

Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs

 

continues)
‘OF 2018-61.5 may be prosecuted concurrently with the
Saninisceative action.

 

 

(emphases added.)
> RS § 2918-36 (a) (2) (C) states:

{a)_ Whenever a respondent has been arrested for a violation of
section 2918-61 or 2916-61.5 and submits toa test that
establishes: the respondent’s elcohol concentration was .08 or
more... + the following shall be forwarded imediately to the
Sirector:

‘the sworn statenent of the person responsible for maintenance of
the testing equipment, stating facts that establish that, pursuant
fo section 321-161 and rules adopted thereunder

{C) ‘The testing equipment used had been properly maintained and
vas in good working condition When the test as conducted.

3
 

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

submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we hold that:

(1) This court has previously addressed Leon-
Guerrero’s arguments (1) through (6) and found them to be without
merit:

(2) under the circumstances of the present matter, the
hearing officer did not commit an abuse of discretion by
continuing the hearing due to the Intoxilyzer Supervisor's three
nonappearances, pursuant to HRS § 2916~38(k):* and

 

+ Ag to argument No. 1a in the instant appeal: See Ereitan v.
bs arte ("Ereitas I"], 108 Hawaii Sl, 37-40, 116 P34 673,

679-66? (2005); see alse Minnich-v. Rdsin, Dix. of the Courts ("winnich”}, 109
Hawai's 220, 227,124 P-34 968, 972 (2008)7
Courts, 108 Hawai: 78, 83, 117 P.34 103, 114 (2005).

‘he to argument No. Yb in the inseant appeal: See Munich, 109 Hawai"s
at 227, 124 Psd at 972; Dunaway, 108 Hawai at 83, 117 Pasa at 11e

‘he to azgument Nos. 2(a) and (b) in the instant appeal! sag
108 Hawai'i at 4énts, 116 P.3d at 686-87; Minnich, 109 Hawai's at 226, 12¢ F.3d

at 9717 Dunaway, 108 awai'i at 63, 117 P.3a at 114.

‘As to-arginent 24 in the instant appeal: See Freitas 11, 108 Hawai'i at
45-46, 116 P.3d at 687-88; gee also Minnich, 109 Hawaii at 226, 124 P.3a at
971) Dunaway, 108 Hawai" ae 05-64, 127 Po3d at 114-15.

Rs to argument No. 26 in the instant appeal: see Exeitas IL, 108
Hawai'i at 46, 116 F.3d at 688; age algo Minnich, 109 Hawai's at 226, 124 P.3d
at 372; Dunaway, 208 Havas at @¢y il) Poa at 115,

  

 

 

 

 

 

‘hs to argument No, Ja in the instant appeal: See Dunaway, 108 Hawai's
at e¢-05, 117 P-3d at 115-16; see alse Minnich, 109 Hawai't at 226, 124 2.34
eon.

 

‘hs to argument No. 3b in the instant appeal: see. 108 Hawas's
at 85-86, 117 P.3d at 116-17; see algo Minnich, 102 Hawaii at 226, 124.36

ae 972.
“is to argument No. 3c in the instant appeal: See Dunaway, 108 Hawai'i

at 06-87, 117 P.34 at 1i7=18.
‘As’ to argument No, 4 inthe instant appeal: See id, at 67, 117 F.3d at

As to argument Wo. $ in the instant appeal: See Park v. Tanaka, 75 Haw.
271, 276, 889 8-26 917, 920 (1993).

Ae‘ to argument NO. 6 in the instant appeal: gee Exeitas Li, 100 Hawas't
at 46, 47, 116 Psa at 688, 685; see also Mannich, 108 sawari at 225, 124
Pad ot $137 Dunaway, 108 Kawaii at @¢, 1]? Peod at 115.

ue.

 

+ Rs § 2918-38(k) provides that “(t]he absence from the hearing of
a Law anforcenent officer or Other person [who has been properly served with &
Subpoena]... « constitutes good cause for a continuance.” The Director

 

Hing officer did not exr by

explains that Gnder HRS § 2916-38(k), ‘the Hi
(continued...)
+“ NOT_FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

 

(3) the district court properly ruled that the
administration of the sobriety tests after the accident goes to
the weight of the evidence and does not bar the evidence because
the officers opined that the accident affected her test
performance but Leon-Guerrero did not present evidence in support
of her theory that drivers who participate in sobriety tests
after being involved in a major accident “will most certainly
fail.” Moreover, other competent evidence, including Leon-
Guerrero’s spontaneous utterances, red, watery, and glassy eyes,
strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on her breath, and
involvement in the motor vehicle accident, supports the hearing
officer's preponderance finding.* Therefore

*(...continued)
continuing the hearing because of the non

Supervisor.

rance of the Intoxtlyzer

  

‘this 1s further supported by the legislative history of Act 113:

 

the absence of police officer witnesses may be due to any number

of legitimate reasons which may not be known Co the ADLEO hearing

Séficer at time of nearing. Currently, the absence of

Subpoenaed and served police officer at the ADLAO hearing would

Gause a reversal upon judicial review, merely on the-basis of the

Gtficer’s unexplained non-appesrance at time of hearing. There
i

wood be hat snot
innot dismissed or reversed due to che excusable ton-apvearance
gitailure of an officer to-notity the office prior te hearing
‘Heike, the aooc cause for the continuance to be ordered initially
heating office = estace
the hearing officer is sancated oy statute to control and conduct
the hearing, =
a instion oF tia th
hearing officers hands,

en. Stand. Conn. Rep, No. 2274, in 2002 Senate Journal, at 1147. (Emphases
adged.)

* soe State v. Tovemura, 60 Nawat"t 8, 27, 904 P.2d 893, 912 (1995)
(*trror is not te be Viewed in ieoletion ang considered purely in the
Abstract, It mist be examined in the light of the entire proceedings and
Given the ezfect which the whole record shows it tobe entitled. In that
Sontext, the real question becomes whether there is a reasonable possibility
thet erfor night have contributed to conviction. ‘Where there 1s'a wealth of

(continued.

 

 
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIIREPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *¢*
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the district court's
Septenber 13, 2004 judgnent is affirmed in all respects.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, March 27, 2008,

Sasha A. Leon~Guerrero ae

ciraré 0. tau, :
seats Reecenay General, cute esti a
for Respondent-Appellee, *
Aguinistencive oleecter

aerthe cousese Kae oem.

State of Hawai'i

*(.. continued)
overwhelming and compelling evidence tending to show the defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt, errors in the admission or exclusion ef evidence
are deened harmless." (Citations omitted.)).

6