YUKI GLEASON, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant, vs. ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS, STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Respondent-Appellee.

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 and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorney for Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant YUKI GLEASON:
     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:
     Sianha M. Gualano and Christopher J.I. Leong, Deputy Attorneys General

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Shirley M. Kawamura, due to a vacancy, filed 12/04/25.

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Lisa M. Ginoza, filed 12/17/25.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Kevin T. Morikone, in place of Ginoza, J., recused, filed 12/17/25.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 12/23/25.

NOTE: Order granting motion to postpone the 03/31/26 oral argument, filed on 03/17/26. 

NOTE: Amended Memo of Setting dated 03/30/26, is amended for the purpose of adding:
     –Order granting ACLU OF HAWAI‘I FOUNDATION’s motion to participate in Oral Argument and share time with Petitioner-Appellant, filed on 05/08/26.
     –Amicus Curiae ACLU OF HAWAI‘I FOUNDATION as a party.

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

Brief Description:

This case raises a question as to what inferences, if any, a factfinder may draw from a driver’s refusal to participate in a Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST).

Yuki Gleason was operating a vehicle and was stopped by a police officer after her vehicle was observed swerving. During the traffic stop, Gleason was asked to participate in an SFST, which she declined. She was subsequently arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII).

After the Administrative Driver’s License Revocation Office (ADLRO) revoked Gleason’s license for one year, she requested an administrative hearing to review the ADLRO’s decision. Following a hearing, the ADLRO affirmed the revocation basing its decision, in part, on an inference of a consciousness of guilt drawn from Gleason’s refusal to participate in the SFST.

Gleason subsequently filed a petition for judicial review of the ADLRO’s decision. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the administrative revocation. Gleason then appealed to this court.

There is one issue before the court: In an OVUII case, may the factfinder infer a consciousness of guilt from the driver’s refusal to participate in an SFST?