Opinion ID: 3158283
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Arrest and proceedings through trial

Text: During the early morning hours of April 20, 2011, Won was observed driving at a high rate of speed by an officer of the Honolulu Police Department (HPD). After pulling Won over, the officer detected the odor of alcohol on Won’s breath and observed that Won’s eyes were “red” and “watery.” Based on this information, the officer concluded that Won was likely intoxicated. A standard field sobriety test and preliminary alcohol screen test were administered, both of which Won failed. Won was arrested for OVUII in violation of HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) and transported by police to the local police station. 10 At the police station, an officer read to Won a form entitled “Use of Intoxicants While Operating a Vehicle Implied Consent for Testing” (Implied Consent Form). 11 Of foremost relevance to this case, the Implied Consent Form informs arrested persons of certain information, in three sections. 10 HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) (Supp. 2010) provides: (a) A person commits the offense of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant if the person operates or assumes actual physical control of a vehicle: . . . (3) With .08 or more grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath . . . . 11 The police report apparently refers to the Implied Consent Form as the “ADLRO form,” as the report notes, “I read Won the ADRLO form. He elected the breath test.” The Implied Consent Form is identified as “HPD396K (R-01/11)” at the bottom left of the form. - 6 - FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Pursuant to chapter 291E, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), Use of Intoxicants While Operating a Vehicle, you are being informed of the following: 1.___ Any person who operates a vehicle upon a public way, street, road, or highway or on or in the waters of the State shall be deemed to have given consent to a test or tests for the purpose of determining alcohol concentration or drug content of the persons breath, blood or urine as applicable. 2.___ You are not entitled to an attorney before you submit to any tests [sic] or tests to determine your alcohol and/or drug content. 3.___ You may refuse to submit to a breath or blood test, or both for the purpose of determining alcohol concentration and/or blood or urine test, or both for the purpose of determining drug content, none shall be given [sic], except as provided in section 291E21. However, if you refuse to submit to a breath, blood, or urine test, you shall be subject to up to thirty days imprisonment and/or fine up to $1,000 or the sanctions of 291E-65, if applicable. In addition, you shall also be subject to the procedures and sanctions under chapter 291E, part III.[12] (Emphasis added). Thus, the Implied Consent Form has three principal provisions: an informational section, a denial of the right to counsel section, and a refusal to submit section. The Implied Consent Form includes space so that the person can initial each section to indicate acknowledgement. Won initialed both the refusal to submit section, which informed him that refusing to submit to the BAC test is punishable by up to thirty days of imprisonment and a fine of up to $1000, and the informational section. He did not initial the denial of the 12 HRS § 291E-65 applies to a person under the age of twenty-one at the time of the offense. HRS Chapter 291E, Part III addresses the administrative revocation process which provides for suspension of the person’s license and privilege to operate a vehicle. - 7 - FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER right to counsel section. 13 The Implied Consent Form separately has space for the person to indicate which BAC test--breath, blood, or urine--the person has agreed or refused to submit and also contains space for both the person and the officer administering the Implied Consent Form to sign. Won initialed next to “AGREED TO TAKE A BREATH TEST AND REFUSED THE BLOOD TEST” and signed the form with his name at the bottom. A breath test was performed on Won using an Intoxilyzer 8000. Won’s BAC was 0.17 grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath, which is above the limit of 0.08 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath under which a person may legally operate a vehicle. See HRS § 291E-61(a)(3). Won was charged in the District Court of the First Circuit (district court) in an amended complaint with OVUII, in violation of HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) and HRS § 291E-61(b)(1), as a first offense. 14 13 Handwritten notes under the right to counsel section state, “said he does not agree with this one, and was not going to initial.” 14 The original complaint charged Won with violation of HRS “§ 291E61(a)(1) and or (a)(3).” Won filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint for failure to allege the requisite mens rea. Subsequent to Won’s motion but prior to the district court’s ruling on it, this court issued State v. Nesmith, 127 Hawaiʻi 48, 276 P.3d 617 (2012), which held that mens rea must be included in a complaint alleging violation of HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) but that it need not be alleged in a charge under HRS § 291E-61(a)(3). The district court denied the motion to dismiss and granted the State’s motion to amend the complaint. The amended complaint included the requisite mens rea for the HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) charge. At trial, Won orally moved the court to reconsider its decision denying the dismissal of the HRS § 291E61(a)(1) charge. The State did not object to the dismissal of the HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) charge, and the court granted the motion. - 8 - FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Won filed a “Motion to suppress statements and evidence of [Won’s] breath or blood test” (Motion). The following grounds were asserted for suppression of the BAC test: (1) Won was misled and inadequately advised as to his rights “surrounding the chemical test, in violation of not only existing Hawaiʻi appellate precedent but also his Due Process rights”; (2) Won’s constitutional right to be adequately apprised of his rights was violated; (3) Won was deprived of an attorney in violation of HRS § 803-9; 15 and (4) Won “was presented with a Hobson’s Choice, either remain silent or commit a crime.” The State disputed each of Won’s arguments, stating in response that (1) Won was adequately advised in regard to his rights prior to the breath test, (2) the breath test did not implicate a right to be advised of one’s constitutional rights, (3) the breath test did not implicate a Sixth Amendment right to 15 In relevant part, the statutory right to an attorney provides: It shall be unlawful in any case of arrest for examination: (1) To deny to the person so arrested the right of seeing . . . counsel . . . ; (2) To unreasonably refuse or fail to make a reasonable effort . . . to send a . . . message . . . to the counsel . . . ; (3) To deny to counsel . . . the right to see or otherwise communicate with the arrested person at the place of the arrested person’s detention . . . . HRS § 803-9 (1993). - 9 - FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER counsel, and (4) the breath test did not implicate a statutory right to counsel under HRS § 803-9. On September 20, 2012, the district court heard Won’s Motion. 16 The district court denied the Motion without making specific findings of fact or conclusions of law, and the case immediately proceeded to trial. The parties stipulated into evidence the facts as set forth above, as well as that the intoxilyzer result was accurate. Based on the stipulated facts, the district court found Won guilty of violating OVUII, HRS § 291E-61(a)(3). 17 Following conviction, Won’s sentence was stayed pending appeal of the judgment of conviction. Won timely appealed the judgment to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA).