HRS 0291E-0036 ANNOTATIONS

Statute requires sworn statements, not statements given under oath or even notarized statements. Offender-Based Transaction Statistics/Computerized Criminal History Arrest Report, along with arresting officer's statement, fulfilled requirements of statute; statute does not require the complete police report. 75 H. 1, 856 P.2d 1207.

Standard form submitted by intoxilyzer supervisor states sufficient facts to comply with requirements of subsection (a)(2) and the instrument is presumed to be properly functioning for thirty days after its successful testing for accuracy; hearing officer and district court were correct in concluding that reasonable suspicion existed for police officer to stop appellant. 75 H. 271, 859 P.2d 917.

Based on §§286-258, 286-259, and this section, upon petitioner's objection, the hearing officer must exclude from the record only (a) all unsworn statements (except the arrest report) of law enforcement officials who do not appear to testify, and (b) all other evidence that is both irrelevant and prejudicial. 91 H. 212 (App.), 982 P.2d 346.

Subsection (b)(1)(C) does not require that all possible and incidental effects of a refusal to consent to a chemical test be explained to an arrestee. 91 H. 212 (App.), 982 P.2d 346.

Where intoxilyzer operator's statements that breath test was administered in compliance with operator's training and the procedures established for conducting the test under subsection (a)(2)(B) and that intoxilyzer indicated no errors or malfunctions during the test, statement verified that equipment functioned in accordance with operating procedures mandated by subsection (a)(3)(C) and set forth sufficient facts to establish that the requirements of subsection (a)(3)(B) and (C) had been satisfied. 93 H. 133 (App.), 997 P.2d 59.