Title: State v. Williams. ICA s.d.o., filed 12/21/2006 [pdf], 113 Haw. 58. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 04/10/2007 [pdf].

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

{++ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'T

 

000.

 

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent/Plaintift-Appellee

THOMAS WILLIAMS, Petitioner/Defendant~Appellant

_— um

No, 27286

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(CASE NOS. 00424005M and TB35: 04/08/05)

  

JULY 24, 2007

Shel hd 92 Tor LOU

 

MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, RCOBA, AND DUFFY, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY DUFFY. J.

Petitioner Thonas Williams seeks review of the

Intermediate Court of Appeals’ (ICA) January 22, 2007 judgment

affirming the April 8, 2005 judgment of the district court of the

second circuit.? We accepted Williams's application for a writ

of certiorari and reverse the judgment of the ICA.
Williams asserts that the ICA gravely erred in
affirming the district court judgment denying Williams's motion

to suppress evidence. Williams claims that there was no evidence

of a “collision” and an insufficient basis to support a finding

} the Honorable Paul Horikaua, Fer Diem Judge, presided over the motion

Bu Hanili, Fer Dies Judge, presided over the
nteneing

 

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

of probable cause to arrest Wiilions with the charge of Operating
Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OUI), Hawai'i
Revised Statutes (HRS) § 2918-61, both of which are required for’
an officer to order a mandatory blood extraction under HRS
§ 2918-21(c). Based on this contention, Williams filed a motion
to suppress the evidence gathered from the blood extraction,
which was denied by the district court and affirmed on appeal.
Wie hold that the district court was wrong in denying
Willians’s motion to suppress the blood test results, because
there was insufficient evidence that Williams was involved in a
“collision.” Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the ICA end
vacate the district court's April @ 2005 judgment, and remand
the case to the district court with instructions to enter an
order granting Willians’s motion to suppress and to allow

Williams to withdraw his conditional no contest pl

 

made
pursuant to Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule

11 (2) (2). See State v, Kealaiki, 95 Hawai'i 309, 314 6 n.6, 22
P.3d 588, 593 & n.6 (2001) (observing “that in the case where the
pretrial motion seeks to suppress the evidence incriminating the
defendant and the appeal is decided against the government, the
proceedings would also ordinarily come to an end, the question
appealed being the underlying predicate reason for the

conditional plea” and that HRPP “Rule 11(a) (2) contemplates by
‘#** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWATI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

its terms that the case would be remanded to allow withdrawal of
the conditional plea, after which . . . dismissal’ (may]’ follow
kecause of the, absence of the evidence suppressed”).

. 1. BACKGROUND

The facts in this case are drawn from the testimony of
Maui Police Department Officer Thonas Martins at the February 18,

2005 hearing on Williams's motion to suppress.

 

on March 5, 2004, at around 4:00 p.m., Officer Martins
was called to investigate @ motor vehicle accident involving a
male party and a motorcycle on the shoulder of the Haleakala
Highway, which is located in the Division of Mailuku, County of
Naui.

officer Martins arrived unaccompanied at the scene, and
observed the motorcycle on the side of the roadway and the male
party about fifteen feet away, close to the shoulder of the
roadway. Officer Martins saw that Williams was bleeding from the
mouth and complaining of pain to his mouth. According to Officer
Martins, Willians had @ laceration on his lip that was
approximately one-inch long.

pon making contact with Williams, Officer Martins, who
has received Driving Under the Influence (DUI) training for

detection of odor on @ party's breath and blood shot or watery
 

‘OR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER **

eyes, noticed an odor of alcohol on Williams’s breath. Officer
Martins had gotten close to Williams in order to request
Williams's driver's license, insurence card, and registration.
Medics arrived while Officer Martins was taking
Williams’ s information and then transported Williams to the
hospital, where a blood draw was taken at Officer Martins’s
request and without obtaining Williams's consent or a warrant.
On direct examination, Officer Martins testified that
based on his investigation -- which considered the lack of any

debris on the ground, skid marks, “or anything like that”

 

he
concluded that the cause of the accident wae that the party wes
intoxicated and fel1 from his motorcycle to the ground. However,
when asked whether the defendant had made any statements as to
what happened, Officer Martins replied, “I don’t recall exactly

what was said."? Subsequently, on cross-examination, Officer

 

Martins acknowledged that he did not know what caused the
accident:

0. And now, and you alse safé you don’t recall how the
accident was caused. “Let ne ask you this way? Do you know
Wat caused the accident?

A. We -= just. from the investigation that we got,
yes. No debris Gn the ground, no skid marks of anything

 

 

 

 

+ an a declaration attached to Milliane's motion to suppress, Joseph 7.
Toma, Williams's attorney at the hearing, stated that “Officer Martine also
noted in his report a stetenent from Defencant providing that. ‘while driving
Gown Haleakala Highway he lest control of his motorcycle and fell to the
Ground. State that’s all he can renenber.’* This purported statenent ty
wins ented a5 evidence in the motion te
super

 

 
 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

Like that, #0 the conclusion was that the party had fallen
‘own on the ground.
. @.. You don’t know that, right?
RW.
€!_ And you don't know whether there was ancther car
' that cane into the notoreycle’s lane of travel that caused
the motorcycle to fall to the ground?

Be.
G! You don’t know thats right?

on ré-cross examination, the following colloquy took

place: '

 

0. So just by the fact thet s person has alcohel on
his breath, that doesn't necessarily support 2 conclusion
that that person is intoxicated and inpaireds correct?

   

 

Be Compared to driving sctorcycies and getting into
fan acesdent?

Qe Right.

AL Unless there was sonething else: that caused the
secident.

@, Now, in Mr. WiLlJams" case, we don’t know what
caused the accident?
‘a. 'We con't know exactly.

 

officer Martins also acknowledged that while the
detection of an odor of alcchol on someone's breath indicates
that the person has been drinking, one could not conclude from
such an oder the amount of alcchol imbibed.
B. Procedural History

on May 5, 2004, the State of Hawai'i charged Williams
by complaint with one count of Operating a Vehicle Under the

Influence of an Intoxicant (OUI), in violation of HRS § 2916-61

 

(supp. 2004),? and one count of Conditions of Operation and

> HRS § 2918-61 provides in relevant pert:
Operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxtcant. (a) A person

Cimaite the offence of epersting 6 vehicle under the influence cf an
Teontinved.

 

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

Registration of Motorcycles and Motorscocters, in violation of
HRS § 431:10G~301, the latter of which is not at issue in this
ase. Williams filed a motion to suppress evidence on

February 7, 2005, in which he argued that no probable cause
existed to justify the forcible extraction of his blood pursuant
to HRS § 291E-21(c) (Supp. 2004). On April 8, 2005 the district
court issued a written order denying William's motion to
suppress. That order, in its entirety, stated the following:

A hearing was held on February 18, 2008, 0
Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence’ filed he
Febroary 7, 2005, and the Court hav:
of Officer’ thomas Martins and the rs
therefrom and the record on file herein,
‘The Court finds thet Officer Thonss Martine had
probeble cause to arrest Defendant Thonas Allan Williens for
the offense cf Operating A Veniele Unser The Influence Of Rn
Intoxicant. Further, Defendant Thomas Allan Williams had
signiticent injuries thet justified the forced of Ieic]
withdrawal of a blood sample. Hawaii Revised Statues §
2918-21" See also, State v Entrekin, 98 Hew. 221 (2002)
‘Based upon the foregoing, the Notion to Suppress
fence filed on February 7, 2008, is hereby denied.
DATED: Wailuku, Mavi, Hawai'i APR O« 2005,

 

     

 

   

Williams entered into a conditional plea under HREP
Rule 11(a) (2), and timely appealed the district court’s order

Genying the motion to suppress.

41. continved)
Anteiteant’ 1! the person ope:
a venieze

(2) iste under the influence of alcohol in an amount sufficient
to impair the person's norms] mental faculties er ability to cere for
the person end guard ageinet casualty!

‘

 

tes oF assumes actual physical control of

 

 

 
 

(spo),

motion to suppre

the ICA affirmed the district court’s deni,

In ite December 21, 2006 summary disposition order

  

stating:

 

bbpon ca¥eful Yeview of the record and the briefs submitted
by the parties ane having given due consideration to the
sryuments advances and the issues se raises by the parties,
‘conclude thet the facts and elreustances were sufficient
fo warrant a person of ressonable caution (Officer Martins)
te believe that an offense had been conitted (Williams
Hlaing his sctereyele ander the influence of alcohol) and
Significant injury had cccarred (the laceration to Williams"
Ligh, and therefore sufficient prossble cause was
established to order that a blced extraction be perforned on

 

 

  

 

Williams. Williens’ ponconseneual blood extraction pursuant
to HRS § 2916-21 was sound. State v, Agvinaldo, 72 Haw. 57,

6,
Hawai'i 221, 47 P.3¢

 

pi2d 1228, 1228 (1989); State-w Entretin, 98
36 (2002).

 

ICA's S00 at 3.

m. BEVIEI

|LICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

of Willians’s

The appellate court reviews a “circuit court's ruling

on a motion to suppress de ncvo to determine whether the ruling

was ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’" State v. Kauhi, 86 Hawai'i 195, 197,

948 F.2d 1036, 1038 (1997) (citation omitted).

In motions to suppress evidence under the exclusionary

rule of the fourth amendment, we have said that

(z}he proponent of a motion to suppress has the burden of
Establishing not only that the evicence sought to be
excluded waz onlewfully secured, but slso, that nis or her

‘om Fourth Anendnent rights were violated by the
Seizure sought to be challenged.

 

eh and

State v, Anderson, 84 Hawai'i 462, 467, 935 P.2d 1007, 1012

(1997) (internal citations, quotation marks, brackets, and

emphases omitted). Rather then constitutional issues, however,
 

‘OR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER **

 

this appeal concerns whether the blood evidence was secured in a
manner that complies with our statute, HRS § 2928-21(c).
Therefore, in this de novo review, we must ask whether Willians
has met his burden of establishing that the blood draw was
unlawful under. the terme of the statute.

III. DISCUSSION 1

A, The Requirements for a Nonconsensual Blood Draw under
HRS $ 291-21(c)

The central issue in this case is whether officer
Martins complied with the statute mandating blood teste in
the event of 2 collision that results in injury or death and
for which the officer has probable cause to believe an
enunerated offense was conmitted. That statute, HRS § 2918-
21(c), provides in relevant part:

In the event of a collisicn resulting in injury or death and
Af law enforcenant officer le caus i

   

 

ction 707=702,5, 707-703, TOT=T0e, 701-705,
707-706, Ze1E=61, 2915-61.5, cf Z51E-EL, the law’ enforcement
officer’ shall request that & sample of blood or urine be
Fecovered from the vehicle operater or any other person
suspected of connstting # viclation.

 

   

HRS § 291E-21(c) (emphases added). Although framed in
mandatory terms (“the law enforcement officer shall”), this
court has also interpreted this statute as setting out the

basis of a police officer's authorization to obtain a blood
sample without consent. See Entrekin, 98 Hawai'i at 226, 47

P.3d at 341 ("HRS § 266-163 [the predecessor of HRS § 291E-

‘
++** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

21) authorizes the police to obtain a blood sample of a
driver involved in a collision resulting in an injury to or
death of any person, including the driver.” (Emphasis
added.) .

‘Therefore, @ police officer can lawfully obtain a
blood draw without consent if (1) there has been “a
collision resulting in injury or death” and (2) the officer

“has probable cause to believe that a person involved in the

 

collision has committed” one of the enumerated offenses.
HRS § 291-21. The results of nonconsensual blood draws
‘that do not comply with the statutory requirements are
unlawful and may be excluded from evidence (or suppressed by
appropriate motion) under the “fruit of the poisonois tree”
doctrine. See State v, Fukusaku, 65 Haw. 462, 475, 946 P.2d
32, 45 (2997) (“[T)he ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine
prohibits the use of evidence at trial which comes to light
as a result of the exploitation of a previous illegal act of
the police.” (Quoting State v. Medeiros, 4 Haw. App. 248,
251 n. 4, 665 P.2d 161, 184 n. 4 (1983).)).
8 “collision” Reavire

Williams argues that “there is no real evidence of
a ‘collision’™ in this case. “Collision” is defined as “the

action or an instance of colliding, viclent encounter, or
 

‘OR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

forceful striking together typically by accident ani so as
to harm or impede.” Webster's Third New Int’1 Dictionary

446 (1993). Based on the facts adduced at the motion to :
suppress hearing, there is insufficient evidence to conclude
that Williams was involved in a collision.

Officer Martins testified that he found Williams
sitting alone, on the shoulder of the highway, about 15 feet
away from the motorcycle, and that he was bleeding from the
mouth and had lacerated his lip. He further testified thet
his investigation revealed no debris on the ground, skid
marks, “or anything like that.” Notably absent from Officer
Martins’s testimony vas any indication that the motorcyle
was damaged or of its position with respect to the road.

Furthermore, by his own testimony, Officer Martins concluded

 

that, based on his investigation, Williams “fell off the
bike.”

‘These facts are insufficient to establish that

 

there was a collision. Although single-vehicle accidents
nay qualify as collisions, see Entrekin, 98 Hawai'i at 223,
47 P.3 at 338 (“Entrekin'’s auto crossed the center lane
marking of Haleakala Highway, sideswiped the guardrail along
the opposite side of the highway, and then crossed back into

his original lane of travel and collided with a dirt

20
 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER,

embankment.” (Emphasis adéed.)), in such a case the vehicle
must nevertheless “collide” with another object. Here, the
factual record does not establish any collision, and even
officer Martins’s theory of the incident merely suggests
that Williams “£el1," which is insufficient, without more,
to imply a collision. Without any collision, the blood draw
under HRS § 2916-61 was unlawful.

The district court did not make express
determinations regarding whether or not 2 collision
occurred, nor did the ICA consider the matter. Rather, the
lower courts focused on the injury requirenent, which was
apparent and not contested by Williams, and the probable
cause issue. .

As pointed out by the prosecution, Williams
appears to have conceded that he was involved in an
“accident,” as revealed by the questions his attorney asked
of Officer Martins at the hearing on the motion to suppress
However, Williams nowhere adnits to being invelved ina
“collision,” and, rather, has contested that very point.
‘The prosecution argues thet “the fact that Willians vas
involved in @ motor vehicle ‘accident’ as opposed to a
‘collision’ does not preclude the police from obtaining a

blood sample from Wil

 

ms pursuant to HRS Section 291£-21,"
‘*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAW!

 

REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

and notes that, in Entrekin, this court used the terns
“accident” and “collision” interchangeably in discussing the
applicability Sf HRS § 2916-21 to the facts of that case.

Tt 4s plain that in conmon parlance, an automobile
collision is often referred to as an “accident.” In fact,
autenobile “accidents” usually involve a collision, as the
Webster definition of the term “collision” -- an act that is
“typically by accident” -- recognizes. See supra. However,
while @ traffic accident can occur in various ways, the
statute requires thet there be collision. officer
Martins's theory that Willians “fell” from his bike would
qualify as an accident that falls short of @ collision, The
prosecution has not presented a persuasive argument that the
plain lenguage of HRS § 2916-21 is meant to enbrace
accidents that do not involve collisions. Although this
court, in Entrekin, at tines used the word “accident” te
refer to what wae clearly a collision, in no way were we
suggesting that the latter is not a necessary part of the
statutory requirement.

Furthermore, the legislative history of HRS

291E-21 buttresses the conclusion that “collision” cannot be

 

read as synonymous with “accident.” Although the current

statute was enacted in 2000, its predecessor was first

22
 

** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

enacted in 1981 and codified as HRS § 286-163. In its
initial form, it applied to “the driver of any vehicle
involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of
any person.” 1961 Haw. Sess. 1. Act 67, § 3, at 101
(emphasis added). However, in 1995, the law was amended to
apply te collisions rather than accidents. See 1995 Haw.

Sess. L, Act 197, § 1 at 372-73 ("In the event of a

 

collision resulting in injury or death. . . .” (Emphasis
added.)). This change makes clear that the legislature
intended the amended law to apply only in case of a
collision, not merely an accident. When the law was
reenacted in 2000 as part of a consolidation of provisions
relating to operating a vehicle while using an intoxicant,
see 2000 Haw. Sess. L. Act 189, Part III, at 406-07, what
would become HRS § 2916-21 kept the prior law's reference to
“collision” rather than accident. Id, § 11, at 410-11,
Therefore, because there is insufficient evidence
of @ collision in this case, the statutory requirements of
HRS § 2916-21 were not met. For this reason, the blood draw
was improper and should have been suppressed. Having found
that the motion to suppress was improperly denied on this
ground, we need not address Williams's argument that the

district court erred in its determination that Officer
 

JON IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER.

 

Martins had probable cause to believe Williams had committed
the ‘OUT offense.
‘ TV.  coNcLUSTON

Therefore, the January 22, 2007 judgment of the
ICA is reversed and the district court’s April 8, 2005 is
vacated and the case is remanded to the court with |

instructions to enter an order granting Williams’s motion to

 

‘suppress and to allow Williams to withdraw his plea pursuant

to HRPP Rule 11(a)(2). See Kealaiki, 95 Hawai'i at 314 6

 

n.6, 22 P.3d at $93 6 n.6.

Matthew S. Kohm
for petitioner/defendant- .
appellant Thomas Williams .

Peter A. Hanano,

bopety rosceneing Attorney, Ress Creare

for respondent /plaintif£-

appellee State of Hawai'i Or