Court Opinion

ID: 9367442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-31 19:03:02.966078+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:00.336966
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                                     Electronically Filed
                                                     Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                                     CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                     31-JAN-2023
                                                     08:15 AM
                                                     Dkt. 60 SO
                            NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

                 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

                         OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

               STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
                MICHAEL PICKELL, Defendant-Appellant.

         APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
                           WAILUKU DIVISION
                       (CASE NO. 2DTA-21-00138)

                      SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
    (By:    Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Chan, JJ.)

            Defendant-Appellant Michael Pickell (Pickell) appeals

from the District Court of the Second Circuit, Wailuku Division's

September 15, 2021 Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment.1
            Pickell was convicted of Operating a Vehicle Under the

Influence of an Intoxicant, in violation of Hawaii Revised

Statutes (HRS) § 291E-61(a)(1) and/or (3) (2020), after entering

into a conditional no contest plea and reserving his right to

appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress.

            Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to

the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve this

appeal as discussed below, and affirm.

     1
         The Honorable Kirstin M. Hamman presided.
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

           On January 26, 2021, Officer Rahul Mehra (Officer

Mehra) observed Pickell facing northbound in the left-turn-only

lane at the intersection of Pi#ilani Highway and Ohukai Road,

which are public roads in the County of Maui.     When the light

turned green, instead of turning left from Pi#ilani Highway onto

Ohukai Road, Pickell made a U-turn going "across [the] double

solid yellow lines" and "the skipped dash white line," and

proceeded southbound on Pi#ilani Highway.

           Officer Mehra testified that the lane Pickell was in

had a painted marking on it indicating "left turn only with the

directional arrow pointed in the left turn direction."      There was

also a sign on the overhanging light saying "left turn only."

           Based on Officer Mehra's testimony, the district court

found that Pickell made an illegal U-turn from a left-turn-only

lane.   The district court then concluded that there was

reasonable suspicion to stop Pickell.

           On appeal, Pickell contends that the district court

erred because there was no reasonable suspicion to justify his

warrantless traffic stop based on a U-turn.     Citing to various
sections of the HRS and Maui County Code (MCC), Pickell argues

that "none of the foregoing statutes and MCC ordinances relating

to obedience to traffic signals apply to the U-turn at issue

unless there were signs or traffic signals that prohibited [him]

from making the U-turn."

           In particular, Pickell relies on MCC § 10.24.140

(1965), which provides that "[w]henever authorized signs are

erected indicating that no right or left or "U" turn is

permitted, no operator of a vehicle shall disobey the directions

                                  2
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

of any such sign."      Pickell also relies on HRS § 291C-82(c)

(2020) requiring that the "director of transportation and the

counties . . . shall place signs which are clearly visible to an

ordinary observant person prohibiting the turning of a vehicle to

proceed in the opposite direction. . . ."

            Notwithstanding, HRS chapter 291C also provides:
            The director of transportation and the counties . . . may
            cause official traffic-control devices to be placed within
            or adjacent to intersections and thereby require and direct
            that a different course from that specified in this section
            be traveled by vehicles turning at an intersection, and when
            such devices are so placed, no driver of a vehicle shall
            turn a vehicle at an intersection other than as directed and
            required by such devices.

HRS § 291C-81(3) (2020) (emphasis added).2

            Additionally, HRS § 291C-31(a) (2020) provides that

"[t]he driver of any vehicle shall obey the instructions of any

official traffic-control device applicable thereto placed in

accordance with the law, unless otherwise directed by a traffic

or police officer, subject to the exceptions granted the driver

of an authorized emergency vehicle in this chapter." (Emphasis

added.)   And, MCC § 10.24.100(E) (1965) provides that "[i]n all

cases where official marks, buttons, signs or directional arrows

painted on the pavement are placed within or adjacent to
intersections, no operator of a vehicle shall execute a movement

at such intersections, otherwise than as directed and required by

such marks, buttons, signs, or arrows."          (Emphasis added.)

            Regarding making a left turn, "after entering the

intersection, the left turn shall be made so as to leave the

      2
         An official traffic-control device "mean[s] all signs, signals,
markings, and devices not inconsistent with this chapter placed or erected by
authority or with the consent of a public body or official having jurisdiction
for the purpose of regulating, warning, or guiding traffic." HRS § 291C-1
(2020).

                                      3
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

intersection in a lane lawfully available to traffic moving in

such direction upon the roadway being entered. . . ."              HRS

§ 291C-81(2) (2020).      Similarly, MCC § 10.24.100(B) provides:
          Approach for a left turn shall be made in that portion
          of the right half of the roadway nearest the
          centerline thereof, and after entering the
          intersection, the left turn shall be made so as to
          leave the intersection to the right of the centerline
          of the roadway being entered.

          Here, although there was no U-turn sign, the evidence

established that there was a left-turn-only sign hanging from the

traffic light and left-turn-only markings painted on the road.

Thus, Pickell was required to make a left turn by leaving

Pi#ilani Highway and entering to the right of the centerline on

Ohukai Road.   Pickell instead made a U-turn, violating HRS

§§ 291C-31(a) and -81(3) and MCC §§ 10.24.100(B) and (E).                Due to

this traffic violation, reasonable suspicion existed to conduct

an investigative stop.      See State v. Estabillio, 121 Hawai#i 261,

270, 218 P.3d 749, 758 (2009).

          Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court's

September 15, 2021 Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment.

                 DATED:    Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 31, 2023.

On the briefs:                          /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
                                        Presiding Judge
William H. Jameson, Jr.,
Deputy Public Defender,                 /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
for Defendant-Appellant.                Associate Judge

Renee Ishikawa Delizo,                  /s/ Derrick H.M. Chan
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,            Associate Judge
County of Maui,
for Plaintiff-Appellee.

                                    4