Opinion ID: 4545362
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Officer Wong’s testimony

Text: The State presented only one witness: Officer Wong of the Honolulu Police Department (“HPD”), the arresting officer. Jones did not testify nor did he present any other witnesses. Officer Wong testified that he attended the police academy as a police recruit in 2010. As of his January 8, 2016 testimony, Officer Wong had been an HPD officer for five years. 3 See supra note 2. 4  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  On July 25, 2015, at around 3:15 a.m., Officer Wong was waiting at a red light on Keʻeaumoku Street heading inland at the intersection of Makaloa Street. After his light turned green, Officer Wong heard a loud sound, as from a roaring engine, to his left and saw headlights heading eastbound on Makaloa Street; the car, a four-door Toyota sedan, went through the intersection, running the red light. Officer Wong followed and pulled over the car. When he approached the driver’s side window, Officer Wong could “smell the strong odor of alcohol from [the driver’s] breath.” Officer Wong informed the driver, whom he identified as Jones, why he had been pulled over, to which Jones responded, “[O]h, I didn’t make the light?” Jones spoke with “[s]trong slurred speech.” When Officer Wong viewed Jones and the interior of the cabin with his flashlight, he also noticed that Jones had red, bloodshot eyes. When Officer Wong asked Jones for his license, car registration, and insurance, Jones fumbled with his wallet and driver’s license, and the license fell in his lap. Officer Wong then asked Jones if he would participate in SFSTs. Jones stated he had not been drinking as he was the designated driver for his friends, and that they had just come from a nightclub, but that he would participate in the SFSTs. 5  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  As of July 25, 2015, Officer Wong had administered SFSTs approximately 800 times. He first received training in SFST administration in May 2011.4 Officer Wong’s initial training had consisted of more than twenty-four hours of training on three days and two nights of SFST testing on live subjects, some of whom had been drinking and some of whom had not. As part of his training, which included both classroom and practical components, he was taught how to evaluate a subject’s performance on the SFSTs. Officer Wong had passed written and practical examinations on administering SFSTs; the practical exam included going over studies that described the findings and success rate of each SFST. As a result of his training, he had been qualified to administer and evaluate the SFSTs. In 2012, Officer Wong attended the “ARIDE” program, which he described as a refresher course on SFSTs and an introductory course in the drug recognition expert program.5 Upon completion of the ARIDE program in 2012, he was recognized as a drug 4 According to Officer Wong, the SFST training was mandatory training given to all police recruits at the police academy. His later testimony suggested that this training may have occurred in 2010. 5 California Highway Patrol describes the “ARIDE” program as an Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement course developed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the International Association of Chiefs of Police Technical Advisory Panel and the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police to “bridge the gap” in training between standard field sobriety testing and drug evaluation and classification programs for states that also have such drug programs. See California Highway Patrol, Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) Course, available at https://www.chp.ca.gov/programs-services/for-law-enforcement/drugrecognition-evaluator-program/schedule-of-classes/aride [https://perma.cc/QRW9-9M3K]. 6  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  recognition expert, and he also took a refresher course in drug recognition in 2013. In 2015, Officer Wong became a SFST instructor for the HPD. To become an instructor, he was again trained by senior instructors, gave classes, and passed exams. When asked whether he was required to receive any certifications to become an instructor, Officer Wong responded that the senior instructors were qualified by the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) and the International Association of the Chiefs of Police (“IACP”). The senior instructors then trained the officers who trained him. He described this as the certification process. Jones’s nonresponsive objection to this testimony was overruled. Officer Wong’s later testimony regarding his instructors’ certifications by NHTSA was also received over Jones’s lack of foundation and hearsay objections. According to Officer Wong, the NHTSA manual sets forth standards for the administration of SFSTs, which consist of the horizontal gaze nystagmus6 test (“HGN”), the walk-and-turn test, and the one-leg stand test. Officer Wong testified that a subject’s performance on SFSTs “is indicative of whether or not they can operate a vehicle in a safe and prudent manner.” 6 Nystagmus has been defined as “[a] rapid, involuntary jerking or twitching of the eyes, sometimes caused by ingesting drugs or alcohol.” Nystagmus, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). 7  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  Officer Wong was asked what correlation, if any, existed between a subject’s ability to perform the SFSTs and the subject’s ability to operate a motor vehicle. Jones objected to this question based on a lack of foundation for Officer Wong to testify as an expert on a correlation, the lack of scientific evidence of a correlation, and the lack of evidence that Officer Wong had received training on making such a correlation. The deputy prosecuting attorney (“DPA”) responded that Officer Wong had testified that he had been certified, that he was a trainer on SFSTs, and that he was trained multiple times on the SFSTs. The following exchange occurred: THE COURT: Okay. Well, the -- the testimony was rather summary in nature, but as far as I’m concerned, it did [hit] the prime points initially set forth [] in State versus Mitchell[7] not in the order listed and not necessarily broken up in bullet point form. But I’m satisfied that the officer’s testimony does meet with the primary requirements set forth, the foundational requirements. If the officer has been certified and retrained which is, by the way, something that’s often missing from this testimony, and in this case has himself been qualified to become a certified instructor, and has specifically testified that this is all in accordance with NHTSA, I’m satisfied the Mitchell standard has been met in this case. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Except that there was no testimony yet that he was so certified. He did say he -- he was initially trained in May of 2011 to do the field sobriety test and then he testified about drug recognition until 2013 he became -- he said he became a field sobriety test instructor. But nothing about certification. THE COURT: Well, to be allowed to be -- I grant you the exact language hasn’t been adduced. But to become an instructor and then to be allowed to perform these tests 7 In State v. Mitchell, 94 Hawaiʻi 388, 15 P.3d 314 (App. 2000), the ICA held that before HGN test results can be admitted into evidence, “it must be shown that (1) the officer administering the test was duly qualified to conduct the test and grade the test results; and (2) the test was performed properly in the instant case.” 94 Hawaiʻi at 397, 15 P.3d at 323. 8  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  over the past few years, I find, for foundational purposes, it does meet the standard. At least he couldn’t have done that if he wasn’t certified. So I’m granting you that specific testimony has not been adduced. That said, I’m satisfied that, at least via inference if not exact language, the standard has been met. So objection’s overruled. Officer Wong then testified as to the SFSTs performed by Jones. Jones responded in the negative to the medical rule-out questions regarding whether he had any impediments that could affect his performance on the SFSTs. Officer Wong also testified that the sidewalk area of Makaloa Street, where Jones performed the SFSTs, was well-lit and level, that the weather was clear, and that he did not notice any physical injuries to Jones or any other circumstance that would interfere with Jones’s ability to perform the SFSTs. Officer Wong was then asked about the HGN test. Jones immediately objected on the grounds that there is no scientific evidence to establish a foundation that performance on the HGN test is admissible to prove intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt, and that State v. Ito, 90 Hawaiʻi 225, 978 P.2d 191 (App. 1999)8 had discussed the HGN test being admissible as to probable cause only and had not reached the issue of whether the HGN test is sufficiently scientifically reliable to prove guilt beyond a 8 In Ito, the ICA held that HGN test results have been sufficiently established to be reliable, and that as long as a HGN test was properly administered, its results are relevant and admissible as evidence in an OVUII (previously referred to as DUI) case that police officers had probable cause to believe that a defendant was OVUII, but expressly not deciding whether HGN test results are admissible as evidence of a defendant’s intoxication because the issue had not been presented. 90 Hawaiʻi at 240-41, 978 P.2d at 206-07. 9  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  reasonable doubt. The district court overruled the objection without prejudice.9 Officer Wong then testified on how he had been trained to administer the HGN test in accordance with the NHTSA manual, which was to have a subject place their feet together with heels and toes touching, hands to the sides, and to inform them he would be holding a stimulus, a pen, twelve to fifteen inches from the subject’s face, slightly above eye level, and that the subject was to follow the tip of his pen with their eyes without head movement. He testified he was trained to look for the lack of smooth pursuit, distinct and sustained nystagmus at maximum deviation, and the onset of nystagmus before forty-five degrees, and that if a subject exhibited any of those three things, it would be a “clue” of nystagmus that was considered a “fail.” When asked by the DPA what that meant regarding a subject’s sobriety, Jones again objected based a lack of foundation regarding correlation. The DPA again responded that Officer Wong had testified he had been trained and certified according to NHTSA standards to administer SFSTs, including attending a recent refresher course, which should allow him to give an opinion regarding nystagmus and a subject’s sobriety. Jones 9 The district court stated, “There’s a wealth of material, not just Ito, Ferrer, K[ehdy], all those cases get into whether or not HGN is admissible for the purpose of determining intoxication.” See supra note 8 and infra notes 12 and 13. 10  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  responded that the issue was not whether Officer Wong had properly administered the test, but the lack of foundation regarding Officer Wong’s expertise regarding whether the HGN test is correlated to evidence of intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt. The district court then stated: Here’s the issue. Ito,[10][ Mitchell,[11] Ferrer,[12] even K[ehdy],[13] none of them say what would constitute admissibility of HGN results for substantive intoxication. All they say is what wasn’t done in those cases. I am finding, lacking any guiding authority otherwise, that the standard they say hasn’t been met in those cases has been met in this case. And without anything saying I can’t, I will, over objection, admit the testimony for the purpose of determining substantive evidence of intoxication beyond simple probable cause which isn’t even relevant at this point. So objection is overruled. Your objection is preserved for the record, [defense counsel]. Officer Wong then testified over another overruled objection that if there was no medical problem or medication issue, the existence of nystagmus is indicative that alcohol is 10 See supra note 8. 11 See supra note 7. 12 In State v. Ferrer, 95 Hawaiʻi 409, 23 P.3d 744 (App. 2001), the ICA held that the State had failed to lay a proper Toyomura foundation, for the admission of an officer’s expert opinion on whether the defendant had “passed” or “failed” the psychomotor FSTs. 95 Hawaiʻi at 430, 23 P.3d at 765. Ferrer also separately held that the foundation laid had been insufficient to establish that the officer was duly qualified to conduct the HGN test and grade the test results. 95 Hawaiʻi at 424, 23 P.3d at 759. 13 In State v. Kehdy, No. 29146, 2009 WL 1805908 (App. June 25, 2009) (SDO), the ICA ruled that the State failed to provide sufficient foundation to admit an officer’s testimony regarding a driver’s performance on the HGN test, where the officer stated he was provided with materials from the NHTSA during his training and that his instructors went through the standards and guidelines from the NHTSA, but did not state the training he received met NHTSA standards as required by Ito, and merely stated he received materials from NHTSA regarding standards and guidelines, and that, like in Ito, there was no evidence the officer was supervised by certified instructors during his training. 2009 WL 1805908, at . 11  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  impairing a subject’s ability to perform the SFSTs and to operate a motor vehicle. Officer Wong then testified that on July 25, 2015, he instructed Jones on the HGN test consistent with the standard instructions indicated above, and that Jones stated he understood them. This concluded the testimony for January 8, 2016, and Officer Wong’s testimony was continued until March 22, 2016. Upon resumption of Officer Wong’s testimony on March 22, 2016, Jones renewed his objection to the relevance of SFSTs to prove intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt. The district court overruled the objection, indicating that although it believed Jones’s previous objections had been sufficient, Jones would be granted a standing objection to the relevance of the SFSTs to prove intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt. The district court also overruled Jones’s renewed objection to the admission of the HGN test testimony in its entirety as evidence of intoxication and granted a continuing objection to the admission of the HGN test testimony. The following exchange occurred: [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I would just for the record like to renew my objection to the relevance of the field sobriety test to prove intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt, and ask for a continuing objection in that regard. THE COURT: So noted. But I think your -- well, objection’s noted but overruled. And I think it’s -- it’s lodged sufficiently. If you’re just talking about the field sobriety test, case law makes it fairly clear what that consists of. So just saying that you object to the field sobriety test I think lays out sufficient parameters to cover what they are. 12  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  So running objection is noted. I don’t think it’s necessary, but your initial objection is sufficient to make a record. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And I would also like to renew and ask for a continuing objection to the horizontal gaze nystagmus test as evidence of intoxication. Under State versus Ito,[14] it clearly states that it’s admissible for probable cause but does not reach the issue of whether it’s admissible for intoxication. THE COURT: So noted. And again overruled for the same reasons as before. Ito,[15] Mitchell,[16] Ferrer[17] and K[ehdy][18] make the requirements fairly stringent. But I do find or have found and, therefore, will stand on my finding that this is one of the rare cases because of the situation with Officer Wong’s having been -- let’s see, was this the one? Oh, yeah, okay, yeah, not just originally certified by recently recertified. To the extent that K[ehdy] makes that requirement, periodic retraining amongst and including any other requirements, it’s satisfied in this case. So foundation has been laid. Objection is noted, though, and lodged for the record. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Well, I wasn’t -- I wasn’t clear that he actually testified that he was recertified for the purposes of HGN. I think he -- I thought he testified that he was recertified for -- as a -- as a drug recognition expert. THE COURT: Right, which includes HGN precisely because it is not, as I recall, an indicator of -- of intoxication due to THC.[19] But that would necessarily mean covering as well for alternative intoxication including without -- including and especially alcohol. So, I mean, for the reasons stated before, your objection is noted and lodged. I believe it’s safe. And if it’s not, I’m sure that you’ve made it clear enough for appeal purposes. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes. And so just to confirm, I have a continuing objection, I don’t have to raise it every time that it’s discussed? THE COURT: Well, once you’ve -- yeah, you don’t. Officer Wong then testified that he administered and evaluated the results of each SFST administered to Jones in 14 See supra note 8. 15 See supra note 8. 16 See supra note 7. 17 See supra note 12. 18 See supra note 13. 19 No such evidence was received in this case. It appears the district court may have been relying on its knowledge of the contents of NHTSA manuals. 13  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  accordance with his training and the NHSTA manual. With respect to the HGN test, Officer Wong checked for and found no resting nystagmus, he observed that Jones’s pupils were of equal size, and he confirmed that Jones could track the stimulus equally - based on these observations, Officer Wong continued on with the test. Officer Wong testified that during Jones’s performance of the HGN test, he observed six out of six clues of intoxication, which were lack of smooth pursuit, distinct and sustained nystagmus at maximum deviation, and onset of nystagmus prior to forty-five degrees, in both eyes. According to Officer Wong, this meant that Jones had “failed” the HGN test. Officer Jones also testified the “fail” meant Jones had a blood alcohol content of 0.08 or above. The DPA then asked Officer Wong if there were any studies about the HGN test that would point toward that conclusion. Officer Wong began testifying about a San Diego field test study, indicating that it was the most recent study, in which police officers conducted the test in the field and in the laboratory. At this point, Jones objected on hearsay grounds, that Officer Wong was testifying about a study he had not seen. The DPA responded that the testimony was being offered for foundation. The district court sustained the objection on the grounds that “there are certain hoops that still have to be jumped through for even an expert to testify about external treatises, articles, 14  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  that sort of thing that have not been met yet as far as I’m concerned.”20 Thus, Officer Wong did not testify as to studies apparently supporting his testimony that Jones’s “failure” on the HGN test mean he had a blood alcohol content of 0.08 or above. Next, Officer Wong testified regarding his administration of the walk-and-turn test. Once more, he gave Jones instructions on how to perform the test, including verbal instructions and a demonstration of the correct position. Jones confirmed he understood the test and had no questions. Officer Wong looked for two clues during the instructional phase, in which he asked Jones to stay in position and not begin until cued: whether Jones could keep his balance while standing still and whether he started too soon or without being told to start. He then looked for six clues during the walking portion of the test: whether Jones turned around improperly, stopped, failed to 20 It appears the district court was referring to Hawaiʻi Rules of Evidence (“HRE”) Rule 803(b)(18) (2002), which provides a hearsay exception for “learned treatises”: (18) Learned treatises. To the extent called to the attention of an expert witness upon cross-examination or relied upon by the witness in direct examination, statements contained in published treatises, periodicals, or pamphlets on a subject of history, medicine, or other science or art, established as a reliable authority by the testimony or admission of the witness or by other expert testimony or by judicial notice. If admitted, the statements may be read into evidence but may not be received as exhibits. 15  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  step heel-toe, stepped off-line, raised his hands, or took an improper number of steps. According to Officer Wong, a subject “fails” the test if he exhibits two clues. Officer Wong testified Jones exhibited seven clues: he was unable to keep his balance during the instructional phase, stopped walking while on the turn, turned improperly, did not step heel-to-toe five times (missing by about a half-inch), stepped off-line three times, raised his arms six to eight inches, and took ten steps instead of nine. Officer Wong also testified that at the end of the first nine steps, Jones stopped and asked him if he should take nine steps or ten; Officer Wong responded that he should “take the test as how he had remembered” from the instructions. Jones ended up taking ten steps. Officer Wong then testified that Jones “failed” the walkand-turn test and that his blood alcohol content was at or above 0.08. Officer Wong then testified that he instructed Jones and demonstrated how to complete the one-leg stand test, after which Jones affirmed that he understood. During the test, Officer Wong looked for four clues while Jones stood on one leg and counted for thirty seconds: whether Jones swayed to keep balance, raised his arms six inches or more, hopped on one leg, and put his foot down at any point. Officer Wong testified he observed 16  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  Jones three times sway from side-to-side about two inches and twice raise his arms about eight inches; according to Officer Wong, these motions were of a sufficiently significant degree to constitute clues for purposes of the test. Officer Wong then testified that Jones also “failed” the one-leg stand test. He also testified this meant Jones was “not able to drive a car safely.” Officer Wong then testified regarding Jones’s performance on the SFSTs as a whole, stating, “My evaluation is that based on all three of the standardized field sobriety tests that the defendant was not sober and that he was not able to operate a vehicle safely and that he did not pass[.]” Over objection, he testified that Jones was intoxicated. After completion of the SFSTs, Officer Wong arrested Jones for OVUII. On cross-examination, with respect to the alleged heel-toe “miss” on the walk-and-turn test, Officer Wong testified that he “didn’t have a measuring stick” and that he just “look[ed] and determine[d] if it’s a half an inch.” Officer Wong conceded he was “approximating” the distance. With respect to the HGN test, Officer Wong stated that the last time he had measured exactly, rather than merely estimated, forty-five degrees of eye displacement had probably been in 2010 at the police academy. Officer Wong also testified, over the State’s objection, that SFSTs provide the probable cause basis for an OVUII arrest 17  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  and that he was trained to “take the arrestee to the police station for further testing to determine intoxication[.]” In response to a cross-examination question as to whether “the conclusion of intoxication is not based on the field sobriety test, the conclusion of intoxication is based upon what further testing is done at the police station, blood or breath or whatever,” however, Officer Wong responded, “No, because if the person refuses to take a test, then how would we come to the conclusion that they’re intoxicated?”