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

Heading: Decision of the ICA

Text: The ICA described the Supreme Court’s decision in McNeely as “address[ing] the narrow question of whether the dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream establishes a per se exigent-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood draws for OVUII arrests.” State v. Won, 134 Hawaiʻi 59, 77, 332 P.3d 661, 679 (App. 2014). According to the ICA’s reading of McNeely, it did not involve “other potential exceptions to the warrant requirement, the Fourth Amendment implications of breath tests, the validity of implied consent statutes, or the validity of breath tests conducted pursuant to such statutes.” Id. Hence, the ICA distinguished McNeely from this case because “Won agreed to submit to a breath test pursuant to Hawaii’s implied consent statute,” and he “was not subjected to a compelled nonconsensual blood draw.” Id. In upholding Won’s BAC test and the statutory scheme imposing sanctions for withdrawing consent, the ICA relied on a balancing analysis through which it was found that the search was reasonable due to its minimal invasiveness and the - 12 - FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER overriding governmental interest in preventing OVUII violations. The ICA declared, citing Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958, 1969 (2013), that “the ultimate measure of the constitutionality of a governmental search is ‘reasonableness.’” Won, 134 Hawaiʻi at 77, 332 P.3d at 679. The ICA referenced a Hawaiʻi appellate decision involving a search of a student at a school and stated, “In determining whether a warrantless search or seizure is reasonable, the court must balance the government’s need to search against the intrusion on the individual’s privacyinterests.” 18 Id. at 78, 332 P.3d at 680 (In re Doe, 77 Hawaiʻi 435, 444, 887 P.2d 645, 654 (1994)). The ICA also held that because “driving is a privilege, not a right,” id. at 78, 332 P.3d at 680, “[a]s a matter of law, a person who exercises the privilege to drive and operates a vehicle on a public road is deemed to have given his or her consent to submit to testing of the person’s breath, blood, or urine for alcohol or drugs.” Id. The ICA theorized that “[t]he Legislature presumably could have sought to make the implied consent to breath testing completely irrevocable.” Id. Thus, the ICA concluded that the statutory right to refuse to submit to testing does not take precedence over the driver’s implied consent to testing. The ICA similarly held that the 18 See infra note 37. - 13 - FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER implied consent to testing is not rendered invalid by rights provided by the Hawaiʻi Constitution. As stated by the ICA, the statutory implied consent prevails over the statutory right to refuse to submit to testing and is not invalidated by article I, section 7 rights. Consequently, while the ICA recognized a “limited statutory right” to refuse a BAC test, it held that this limited right cannot invalidate the consent deemed by statute. Finally, the ICA found that the statutory implied consent could not be withdrawn, reasoning that “the purpose of the implied consent statute would be defeated if a driver could freely withdraw his or her consent to submit to a breath test after being arrested for OVUII.” Id. at 79, 332 P.3d at 681. Accordingly, the ICA affirmed Won’s conviction and sentence. 19 Id. at 80, 332 P.3d at 682. Won timely filed an application for writ of certiorari seeking review of the ICA’s judgment, which this Court accepted. 19 Additionally, the ICA held as follows: (a) McNeely did not render HRS § 291E–68 unconstitutional, Won, 134 Hawaiʻi at 80, 332 P.3d at 682; (b) the administration of the Implied Consent Form was not an interrogation and, thus, there was no requirement to advise Won of his constitutional rights, id. at 73, 332 P.3d at 675; (c) the administration of the Implied Consent Form does not confer a right to an attorney under HRS § 803-9, id. at 74, 332 P.3d at 676; and (d) the Implied Consent Form was not inaccurate or misleading, id. at 75—76, 332 P.3d at 677—78, thus rejecting Won’s arguments. - 14 - FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER