Judiciary systems including JEFS, eCourt Kokua, and Document Drop-off will be unavailable due to maintenance work beginning midnight Friday, September 23, to noon, Sunday, September 25. If work is completed sooner, systems may be restored earlier. Applications, including eReminder, eJuror, and eTraffic will not be affected. Thank you for your patience and understanding.
Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court–No. SCWC-16-0000716
No. SCWC-16-0000716, Thursday, January 9, 2020, 8:45 a.m.
STATE OF HAWAII, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. TROY HOSAKA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee.
The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:
Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali iolani Hale
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Attorney for Petitioner:
Howard K. K. Luke
Attorney for Respondent:
Brian R. Vincent, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 09/27/19.
COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.
Upon suspicion of Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of Intoxicants (OVUII), a police officer asked Troy Hosaka to take a breath or blood test pursuant to Hawaii’s implied consent law, Hawaii Revised Statutes § 291E-11. The officer gave Hosaka an implied consent form (HPD-396K), which Hosaka signed and initialed, ostensibly consenting to a breath test. During subsequent proceedings, the circuit court suppressed the results of the breath test, finding that the implied consent form did not comply with statutory requirements, contained inaccurate or misleading information, and was coercive because it inadequately advised Hosaka about statutory penalties for refusing a test. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) reversed.
On certiorari, Hosaka asks this court to determine whether the ICA gravely erred in holding (1) that the implied consent form did not contain inaccurate or misleading information, even though it did not comport with the procedure set forth by statute and (2) that Hosaka voluntarily consented to the breath test because, notwithstanding any deficiencies in the form, it was not coercive since the penalties it referred to were administrative, not criminal.