Presenting a Baffling Traffic Abstract Without an Explanation Violates Due Process

By -

 

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

HSC overrules a nine-month-old case and goes back to the bright-line rule to determine “custody” in custodial interrogation

By -
  State v. Hewitt (HSC March 15, 2023) Background. Hawai'i County Officer Chandler Nancio and another officer were called to the Kona Community Hospital in the middle of the night to see a possible victim of assault. An unknown man dropped Cyrina Hewitt off at the emergency room. He found Hewitt awake with contusions on her face, her eyes were swollen shut, a laceration was on her ear, and she had a broken breast plate. She was disoriented and “rambling incoherently.” She did not know where she was or why she as in the hospital.   Officer Nancio waited for the nurse to treat her and then asked for her name and birth date. He stayed at her bedside and asked her questions about how she got her injuries. Hewitt at first said she had pink-eye, but then said it was a stye. Then paramedics came by and asked what was going on. The paramedics said that they saw a truck’s taillights sticking out of the bushes on the side of the road.   Sgt. Mekia Rose followed up on the truck and
Read more

Judge accidentally strikes the entire expert opinion in a murder trial

By -
  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 bathroom with a ca
Read more

Officer’s False Testimony Prompts New Trial Even Though it did not Pertain to the Defendant’s Guilt

By -
State v. Stone (HSC June 15, 2020) Background. Kentaru Stone was charged with promoting a dangerous drug in the third degree. The prosecution provided five Honolulu Police Department reports to the defense in discovery. The lead officer in the police investigation was HPD Officer Douglas Korenic II. The police department also has a “found property policy.” Property recovered after an arrest that does not belong to the arrestee is itemized and listed a “found property” for others to claim. The only found property report here was an iPhone. In the prosecution’s opening statement, the prosecutor said that Officer Korenic approached a man at a picnic table at Ala Moana Beach Park at 3:45 in the morning. He talked to the man “when all of a sudden the defendant makes a arm gesture. He uses his arm and he flicks away a small baggie, which Officer Korenic . . . recognizes this substance to possibly be crystal methamphetamine.” The defense posed an alternative theory. Counsel in her open
Read more