MARVIN L. THEDFORD, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant, vs. ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS, STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Respondent-Appellee.

Listen to the audio recording

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be live streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts.

Attorney for Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant MARVIN L. THEDFORD:
Kevin O’Grady of The Law Office of Kevin O’Grady, LLC

Attorneys for Respondent/Respondent-Appellee ADMINISTATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS, STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
Randall S. Nishiyama, Christopher J.I. Leong and Tiffany R. Chang, Deputy Attorneys General

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Vladimir P. Devens, filed 10/27/25.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Catherine H. Remigio and Circuit Judge Taryn R. Tomasa, (1) in place of Devens, J., recused, and (2) due to a vacancy, filed 11/14/25.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 12/10/25.

NOTE: Oral Argument rescheduled from 02/26/26 to 03/05/26 at 2:00 P.M.

COURT: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Remigio, in place of Devens, J., recused, and Circuit Judge Tomasa, assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

This appeal arises out of an Administrative Driver’s License Revocation Office (ADLRO) proceeding that sustained the revocation of Petitioner Marvin L. Thedford’s (Thedford) driver’s license for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant. Thedford was alleged to be impaired by marijuana. Thedford argues that his performance on Standard Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) is irrelevant to show marijuana impairment and such evidence should not have been considered in the ADLRO hearing. He contends that without the SFST evidence, the record was insufficient to sustain his license revocation. Relying in part on the SFST evidence, the ADLRO Hearings Officer sustained the license revocation. In turn, the District Court of the First Circuit and the Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the license revocation.

Thedford challenges the relevance and admissibility of the SFST evidence in establishing impaired driving due to marijuana. He also challenges the Hearings Officer’s reliance on State v. Coffee, 104 Hawai‘i 193, 86 P.3d 1002 (App. 2004) as supporting use of SFST evidence to show marijuana impairment.