N()T I"()I{ PU`B`L,ICAT`ION IN WES'["S HAW"AI‘I REPORTS .»'\Nl) l".,/\CIF[(`. RE_P(`)R'!`E’R
NO. 296l8
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAYI
AR:c P. LARsEN, Petici@ner~Appe11ant, i7j ca
V. w
ADMIN1sTRATIvE D1RscT0R 0F THE c0URTs,
STATE 0F HAWATI, Respondent-Appellee
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCU§Yj
HONOLULU DIVISlON `"
(JR. NO. lDAA~O8~OOl2, CaSe NO. 08-O5040)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakamura, Chief Judge, Foley, and Fujise, JJ.)
Petitioner-Appellant Aric P. Larsen (Larsen) appeals
from the Judgment on Appeal (Judgment) entered on January 5,
2009, by the District Court of the First Circuit (district
court).U The district court affirmed the administrative
revocation of Larsen's driver's license by Respondent-Appellee
Administrative Director of the Courts, State of HawaiU_
(Director), acting through a hearing officer of the
Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office (ADLRO).
A vehicle being driven by Larsen was stopped at an
intoxicant control roadblock. Larsen was subsequently arrested
for driving under the influence of an intoxicant.
On appeal, Larsen argues that there was insufficient
evidence that the roadblock was established and operated in
compliance with statutory requirements. We agree and reverse the
district court's Judgment and the Director's decision to
administratively revoke Larsen‘s driver's license.
y The Honorable william A. Cardwell presided.
NO'I` F()R PU`BL[CATION IN VVEST'S X*IA\’V'AI‘I RI?IPOR'I`S ANI) PA(`.I}:`I(T REPORTPIR
I.
This is a secondary appeal from the district court's
review of the administrative revocation of a driver’s license.
we review the district court's decision under the right/wrong
standard. Brune v. Admin. Dir. of the Courts, 110 HawaFi 172,
176-177, 130 P.3d lO37, l041~42 (2GO6). The district court's
review of the Director's decision is limited to the issues of
whether the Director:
(l) Exceeded constitutional or statutory authority;
(2) Erroneously interpreted the law;
(3) Acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner;
(4) Committed an abuse of discretion; or
(5) Made a determination that was unsupported by the
evidence in the record.
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291E-40(c) (2007).
II.
Larson sought an administrative hearing pursuant to HRS
§ 291E-38 (2007) to review the decision to administratively
revoke his driver's license. HRS § 291E-38(e) provides, among
other things, that:
(e) The [D]irector shall affirm the administrative
revocation only if the [D]irector determines that:
(l) There existed reasonable suspicion to stop the
vehicle, the vehicle was stopped at an
intoxicant control roadblock established and
operated in compliance with sections 29lE-19 and
29lE-20, or the person was tested pursuant to
section 29lE~21
(Emphasis added.)
HRS § 291E~2O (2007), entitled "Minimum standards for
roadblock procedures," provides, in relevant part:
(a) Every intoxicant control roadblock program
shall:
(l) Require that all vehicles approaching roadblocks
be stopped or that certain vehicles be stopped
by selecting vehicles in a specified numerical
sequence or pattern;
(2) Require that roadblocks be located at fixed
locations for a maximum three-hour period;
NO’I_` FOR PIIBL]CA'I"ION IN W'ES'I"S HAW'AI‘I R,EPORTS *AN]) PAC!F`IC RPIP()R'I`I€R
(3} Provide for the following minimum safety
precautions at every roadblock:
(A) Proper illumination;
(B) Off~road or otherwise safe and secure
holding areas for vehicles involved in any
roadblock stop;
(C) Uniformed law enforcement officers
carrying proper identification;
(D) Adequate advance warning of the fact and
purpose of the roadblocks, either by sign
posts, flares, or other alternative
methods;
(E) Termination of roadblocks at the
discretion of the law enforcement officer
in charge where traffic congestion would
otherwise result; and
(4) Provide for a sufficient quantity and visibility
of uniformed officers and official vehicles to
ensure speedy compliance with the purpose of the
roadblocks and to move traffic with a minimum of
inconvenience.
III.
The hearing officer struck the Honolulu Police
Department's "Intoxication Control Roadblock Establishment and
Operation" form (roadblock operations form), which addressed the
roadblock requirements set forth in HRS § 291E-20, apparently on
the ground that it was unsworn.y The hearing officer concluded
that despite the exclusion of the roadblock operations form,
there was sufficient evidence remaining in the record to
demonstrate that the roadblock complied with the statutory
requirements. In particular, the hearing officer indicated that
Sergeant Aaron Bernal’s statement that the roadblock was
established "via Departmental and H.R.S. standards" provided
sufficient evidence to support the determination that the
roadblock had been established and operated in compliance with
statutory requirements.
9 We are not called upon to address whether the hearing officer was
right or wrong in striking the roadblock operations form, but only to
determine whether the admitted evidence was sufficient.
3
NO'I` F()R PUBI.,IC¢\'[`I()N IN WEST'S HA.WAI‘I REPOR"I,`S ANI) PA\CIFI,C `R.I+`.P()R']`ER
The hearing officer, on behalf of the Director,
administratively revoked Larsen‘s driver's license. The district
court affirmed the Director's decision, holding that there was
sufficient evidence to support the hearing officer's conclusions.
IV.
The Director contends that Sergeant Bernal's statement
that the roadblock was established "via Departmental and H.R.S.
standards" constituted sufficient evidence to support the hearing
officer's determination that the roadblock was "established and
operated in compliance with [HRS] section[] . . . 291E-20[.]"
HRS § 291E~38(e)(l). We disagree.
Sergeant Bernal's statement did not address each of the
requirements for a valid roadblock set forth in HRS § 291E~20.
we hold that Sergeant Bernal's conclusory statement that the
roadblock was established via Departmental and HRS standards did
not provide sufficient evidence to support a determination by the
hearing officer that the roadblock complied with the requirements
of HRS § 29lE-20.
Park v. Tanaka, 75 Haw. 271, 859 P.2d 917 (l993), which
is cited by the Director, is distinguishable. Qa;k did not
involve the question of whether there was sufficient evidence to
support a determination by the Director. Instead, Qa;k addressed
the issue of whether the contents of the sworn statement that
must be submitted by the person responsible for maintenance of
the testing equipment was sufficient to meet statutory
requirements. ;Q; at 275-79, 859 P.2d at 920-21. In addition,
the sworn statement of the intoxilyzer supervisor, which the
court found was sufficient in §a;k, addressed each of the
statutory requirements. lQ; Here, as previously noted, Sergeant
Bernal's statement did not address each of the requirements for a
valid roadblock set forth in HRS § 291E-20.
V.
Based on our review of the admitted evidence in the
record, we conclude that there was insufficient evidence to
support the hearing officer‘s determination that the roadblock
4
N()'l` .I"()R PUBI,ICA'I`ION IN WI§S'I"S H.»XWAI‘I REPORTS AND PA(;`II`<`!C R.EPOR'I"I£R
complied with the requirements of HRS § 29lE~20. We therefore
reverse (l) the district court‘s Judgment on Appeal entered on
January 5, 2009, and (2) the Director's decision to
administratively revoke Larsen's driver‘s license issued on
October 29, 2008.
DATED= Hon@lulu, Hawai‘i, January 23, 2010.
On the briefs:
Timothy I. MacMaster éZL@j zQ< ;ZZ&A;*“4@Q%¢~/
for Petitioner~Appellant Chief Judge
_,,_
Dorothy Sellers élézm;zL;?;F /
Solicitor General `
Rebecca A. Copeland Associate Judge
Deputy Solicitor General »
Department of the Attorney General ja ~.
for Resopndent~Appellee
Associate Judge