Presenting a Baffling Traffic Abstract Without an Explanation Violates Due Process

By Benjamin Lowenthal -

 

Wolcott v. Administrative Director of the Courts, State of Hawai'i (HSC December 21, 2020)

Background. Justin Wolcott was arrested for operating a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant. Wolcott refused to submit his blood or breath for chemical testing to determine his blood-alcohol concentration. Because he refused, the police informed of the following:

 

If you refuse to take any tests and your record to operate a vehicle shows three or more prior alcohol or drug enforcement contacts during the ten years preceding the date the notice of administrative revocation was issued, your license and privilege to operate a vehicle will be revoked for ten years.

 

Wolcott was informed that an “alcohol enforcement contact” meant any revocation order, a conviction for OUI in Hawai'i or any other jurisdiction. Wolcott signed the acknowledgement.

 

Weeks later the Administrative Driver’s License Revocation Office conducted a review of the case and revoked Wolcott’s license for ten years. Wolcott requested an administrative hearing. At the hearing, Wolcott asked the hearings officer to explain why the revocation was for ten years. Wolcott had two prior alcohol enforcement contacts in Hawai'i, but could not find the third one that triggered the ten-year revocation.

 

The hearings officer cited a traffic abstract showing two additional contacts. Apparently, the abstract revealed two prior contacts from Oregon. Wolcott moved to strike the abstract because it was not a sworn statement and there was no foundational evidence. The hearings officer denied the motion and affirmed the ten-year revocation. Wolcott appealed to the district court and the ICA, both of which affirmed.

 

Due Process Requires an Explanation for the Traffic Abstract. “A driver’s license is a constitutionally protected interest and due process must be provided before one can be deprived of his or her license.” Slupecki v. Admin. Dir. of the Courts, 110 Hawai'i 407, 413, 133 P.3d 1199, 1205 (2006). While Due Process “is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands[,]” Kernan v. Tanaka, 75 Haw. 1, 22, 856 P.2d 1207, 1218 (1993), “procedural due process requires that a person have an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Freitas v. Admin. Dir. of the Courts, 108 Hawai'i 31, 44, 116 P.3d 673, 686 (2005). No hearing complies with Due Process, however, “when the party does not know what evidence is offered or considered, and is not given an opportunity to test, explain, or refute.” Interstate Commerce Comm’n v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 227 U.S. 88, 93 (1913).

 

The HSC held that providing Wolcott with the traffic abstract and no explanation of its source or how to read it does not comport with Due Process. The HSC noted that the abstract is difficult to comprehend. The ten-page abstract contains multiple charges, citations, and dates that appear to be irrelevant. From those ten pages these are the two Oregon alcohol enforcement contacts that were operative against Wolcott:

 

CONVIC-ST:  OR          CIT-DATE:          02/27/2005 ß-------- (Citation)

OFFENSE:  A21  DUI ALCOHOL            DTL: CONV-DATE: 05/22/2007

 

. . . .

 

CONVIC-ST:  OR          CIT-DATE:          06/18/2006 ß--------- (Citation)

OFFENSE: A20  DUI   ALC/DRUG         DTL: CONV-DATE: 09/11/2006

 

The HSC agreed with Wolcott that the abstract is indeed “confusing to say the least.” Moreover, nothing in the abstract indicates where it came from. The hearings officer noted in his written decision affirming the revocation that the abstract came from the national Problem Driver Pointer System. According to the HSC, the “confusing and coded information in the PDPS Abstract and the failure of the hearing officer to explain to Wolcott the source of the information and how to decipher it” violated Wolcott’s procedural Due Process rights.

 

The Remedy is not a new Hearing, but Reduction of the Revocation Period. When a hearing officer improperly considers an alcohol enforcement contact, the appropriate remedy is reverse the additional revocation period. Custer v. Admin. Dir. of the Courts, 108 Hawai'i 350, 120 P.3d 249 (2005). The HSC held that instead of ten years, there should be only four. And with that the HSC vacated and remanded the judgment to shorten the revocation period.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Judge accidentally strikes the entire expert opinion in a murder trial

By Benjamin Lowenthal -
  State v. Sylva (HSC December 29, 2023) Background. Kumulipo Sylva was indicted for murder in the second degree after he was arrested for killing Eduardo Cerezo in the bathroom of the Queen Kaahumanu Shopping Center. Sylva raised the insanity defense and three examiners were appointed to determine penal responsibility. All three concluded that Sylva suffered from a physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect. Two out of the three believed he lacked capacity under the insanity defense was not criminally responsible.   At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that Cerezo and Kyle Keoho got on the bus in Pukalani when they saw Sylva on the bus. Cerezo called Sylva a “pussy” and threatened to beat him up. When the bus got to the shopping center, the three of them got off and Sylva challenged Cerezo to a fight. Cerezo said he did not want to fight and Sylva walked away from them.   Cerezo and Keoho went to the bathroom together. Sylva also went into the bath...
Read more

If you're going to set bail, it has to be reasonable and can't be excessive so $3.3 million won't work

By Benjamin Lowenthal -
  State v. Carter (ICA March 6, 2024) Background. Samuel Carter was indicted for attempted murder in the second degree and firearms offenses. He was held in jail without bail. About four months later, Carter filed a motion for supervised release or, in the alternative, a motion to set bail. Carter argued that there had been no findings supporting the decision to hold him without bail. The prosecution opposed and attached a letter to the Circuit Court noting that there had been no bail report because of the no-bail determination. According to the pretrial services intake center, it would not assess Carter’s eligibility for supervised release unless and until the court sets bail first.   At the hearing on the motion, Carter asked that bail be set at $100,000. The prosecution objected and argued that there was a rebuttable presumption of detention, Carter posed a danger to the community, and there was a flight risk. The prosecution did maintain that even though he could be...
Read more

HSC doesn’t wait for Rule 40 to find defense counsel ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress

By Benjamin Lowenthal -
  State v. Yuen (HSC August 20, 2024) Background. Charles Tung Ming Yuen was charged with driving under the influence of an intoxicant. The charge arose from a motor vehicle collision that occurred approximately fifty feet from the O’Malley Gate just outside of the Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Honolulu. Two vehicles were approaching the gate when one of the vehicle rear-ended the one in front of it. Military police came onto the scene and identified Yuen as the driver of the vehicle that cause the collision. They seized him and subjected him to standardized field sobriety tests. Then they held him and called the Honolulu Police Department to report a “possible DUI outside the gate.”   The collision, seizure of Yuen, and their investigation occurred outside of the base within the City and County of Honolulu. The police showed up and took over. They conducted their investigation, saw signs of intoxication, and arrested Yuen.   Yuen’s lawyer, Barry Sooalo, di...
Read more