Title: Soderlund v. Administrative Director of the Courts

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

LAW LIBRARY

 

+++ NOT _FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER.

No. 26025 &

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWATS=

DAVID C, SODERLUND, Petitioner-AppeliantzSe

cOWWY ty 9309002
ast

2

ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS, STATE OF HAWAI'I,
Respondent-Appellee.

 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(JRO3-0012; Original Case No. 03-00591)

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

Petitioner-Aappellant David C. Soderlund (*Soderlund”)
appeals from the Judgment on Appeal of the District Court of the
First Circuit (“district court”) filed on July 16, 2003, which
Administrative Director of the

 

affirmed Respondent-Appell

Courts! (“Administrative Director") one-year revocation of

Soderlund’s driver's license.

on appeal, Soderlund argues that the district court
(2) ruling that Soderlund had not been “denied both

rights to a hearing on the ADLRO access

erred by:
his [constitutional]
restrictions [requiring that all prospective attendees, including
the hearing respondent and his counsel, sign in and present

ring) and his rights

 

identification in order to attend a ADLRO h
to a public hearing ()" (2) ruling that Soderlund’ s
(“HPD”) Officer

("Fsts") “in

arresting officer, Honolulu Police Department
Jose Villanueva, administered field sobriety tests
accordance with (National Highway Transportation Safety

Administration] ((*]NETSA(")] standards(]” (emphasis omitted)
(some capitalization omitted); (3) ruling that Soderlund had not
been denied due process of law despite the fact that ADLRO review
   

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER,
hearings from ADLRO license revocations are conducted (a) in de
nove fashion, and (b) without following any established
procedure, in violation of the Hawai'i and United states
Constitutions and Hawai's Revised Statutes ("HRS") §§ 291E-31
through 2918-50 (administrative driver’s license revocation lav);
(4) ruling that the “HPD-396B” implied consent form (for alcohol
content or drug testing) was not fatally defective in (a) failing
to inform Soderlund that he had a legal right to withdraw his
consent to alcohol or drug testing, (b) failing to fully inform
Soderlund 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 Soderlund that a revocation of his driver's
License would also deprive him of the ability to use a moped or a
vessel; (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 2 criminal license

suspension or revocation pursuant to HRS § 291E-61 (Supp. 2002)*)

 

\ Rs § 2928-34(a) (2) (Supp. 2002) provides in pertinent part:

(a) The notice of administrative revocation shall provide, at a
minimum Ghd in clear language, the following general information
Felating to administrative revocation:

 

 

 

 

(2) an explanation of the distinction between adainistrative
revocation and @ suspension oF revocation imposed unde
Section 2912-61 of 291E-61.5.

 

1 tes § 2918-62 (a) (1) (Supp. 2002), the version in effect at the
time of Soderlund’s arrest, provided in pertinent part

(2) A person commits the offense of operating 2 vehicle under the
AntLuence of an Antoxicant if the person operates oF assum
actual physical control of a vehicle

 

(continued...)
   

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *
had not been violated; and (6) failing to reverse the ADLRO
hearing officer's ruling on account of the hearing officer's
improper citation of unpublished Hawai'i court opinions arising
from ADLRO appeals. (These argunents are hereinafter referred to
as “Argument Nos. 1-6.")
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 as follow:

 

(2) Argument No. 2 is without merit because even
assuming that Officer Villanueva’s testimony as to the walk-and-
turn and one-leg stand FSTs was inadmissible, after careful
review, we hold that there remained a wealth of competent

evidence (more than substantial evidence) supporting the Hi

 

ring
officer's finding that Soderlund, by a preponderance of the
evidence, was operating his vehicle under the influence of an
intoxicant. See HRS $$ 2916-38 (e) (3) (A) (Supp. 2002)? and 291E-

 

61; Shorba v. Bd. of Educ., 59 Haw. 388, 398, 583 P.2d 313, 319
cas7a).
(continued)

“) nite under the inflvence of alcohol in an anount
sufficient’ to impair the person's noreal mental faculties
ability to care for the person and guard against casualt;

 

 

 

(2) While under the influence of any drug that impairs the
person's ability to operate the vehicle ina careful and prudent

 

 

+(e) The (Administrative Director] shall affirm the administrative

revocation only if the direstor determines that:

 

evidence proves by a preponderance that:
the influence of an intomscant >

3
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER.

(2) Except as to a jurisdictional subargunent within
Argument No. 3, which is discussed infra, Arguments No. 1, 4, 5
6, and Argument No. 3 (except as to the jurisdictional
subargunent) have been previously addressed by this court and
found to be without merit.‘

(3) Finally, with respect to the jurisdictional
subargunent within Argument No. 3, we hold, as Soderlund admits,
that our decision in Castro v, Admin, Dir. of the Courts, 97
Hawai'i 463, 40 P.3d 865 (2002), is controlling, because no proof
of his refusal to submit to a blood, breath, or urine test was
required in order for the Hearing Officer to revoke Soderlund’s
driver's license (in this case, it was sufficient that there was
more than substantial evidence to support the Hearing Officer's
finding that Soderlund, by preponderance of the evidence,
operated his vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant
in violation of HRS § 2918-61, see HRS § 2918-36(e) (3) (Al). We
decline Soderlund’s invitation to overrule Castro. As such, the

 

+ $90 goa:

As to Argument No. 1 in the instant appeal,
Courts, 108 Hawai'i 380, 398, 120 P-3d 249, 257 {200517

As to Argument No. 3 in the instant appeal (except as to the jurisdictional
Subargunent), Freitas v. Admin. Dir, of the Courts, 108 Hawai'i ly 44-45, 116
P-3d 673, 686-87 (2005); Dunaway v, Adwin, Dir, of the Courts, 108 Hawai'i at
Jay 83, 127 Pod 108, 114 (2008}7

 

As to Argunent No. 4 in the ins
Piaget 15-1);

 

wnt appeal, Dunaway, 108 Hawai't at 85-87, 127

[As to Argument No. § in the instant appeal, id. at 87, 117 P.3d at 1187

‘As to Argument No. 6 in the instant appeal, Freitas, 108 Mawas's at 46-47, 116
Pig at 688-89: and

As to Arguments Nos, 3 through 6 of the instant appeal (except as to. the
Juriedictional subargunent within Argument No. 3), ustar, 108 Hawai'i at 353-
S4y 120 F.3d at 252-53.
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

 

district court's Judgment on Appeal is affirmed.

‘Therefore,

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

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai", December 13, 2006.

on the briefs:

Earle A, Partington
for Petitioner-Appellant
David C, Soderiund

Girard D. Lau, Beta
Deputy Attorney General,

for Respondent-Appel lee
Administrative Director of, Pwo owen are

the Courts, State of Hawai't

Yorn €. Daath +