Honorable Robert Bunda

President of the Senate

Twenty-First State Legislature

Regular Session of 2002

State of Hawaii

Sir:

Your Committees on Transportation, Military Affairs and Government Operations and Tourism and Intergovernmental Affairs, to which was referred S.B. No. 2628 entitled:

beg leave to report as follows:

The purpose of this measure is to clarify the State's "Driving Under the Influence" (DUI) laws.

Testimony in support of the measure was received from the Judiciary, the Department of Transportation, the City and County of Honolulu's Prosecuting Attorney, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The City and County of Honolulu's Police Department supported the measure with amendments.

Specifically, the measure:

Your Committees find that the Judiciary's Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office (ADLRO) has received a number of complaints and concerns raised by police officers relating to arrestee/defense counsel’s late service of subpoenas to appear at ADLRO hearings. The late service of subpoenas has caused conflicts with the officer’s court calendars, late night and early morning work shifts, and last minute family problems such as child care matters. This has increased the number of continuances and delays in ADLRO hearings. Even if not done for the specific purpose of making it difficult for an officer to attend ADLRO hearings, this can be easily corrected by mandating that reasonable notice (i.e., 48 hours service prior to hearing) be given to witnesses that their presence is required at ADLRO hearings. This is further supported by the statutory requirement that requests for subpoenas be made no later than five days prior to the scheduled hearing date.

Your Committees also find that the original intent of the administrative revocation law was to create a fair, but primarily expeditious process to remove dangerous impaired drivers from the streets as soon as possible. Due to the evolution of the law through judicial review decisions and appellate cases, the responsibility on law enforcement officials has expanded to the reading of an exhaustive litany of any and all possible consequences covering all possible scenarios related to the arrestee’s situation, including his or her driving history which may or may not be accurate or known to the police at the time of arrest. The original intent and purpose of the law needs to be revisited and clarified by the requested amendments.

This is time consuming and frustrating to the police who often deal with intoxicated individuals. For example, one document regarding implied consent, has evolved since the beginning of the program from a relatively simple one page form to a two page, two sided document in order to meet the standards established by the current case law. It has simply created an almost unworkable burden on law enforcement and continues to be a major factor in both their apprehension over performing and documenting the voluminous ADLRO paperwork and in ADLRO’s ability to sustain revocations if all of the requirements are not exhaustively performed.

A simplified reference to section 291E-41, Hawaii Revised Statutes, which identifies the criteria used for revocation periods would eliminate much of the current confusion and streamline the process.

Your Committees further find that the absence of police officer witnesses may be due to any number of legitimate reasons which may not be known to the ADLRO hearing officer at time of hearing. Currently, the absence of a subpoenaed and served police officer at the ADLRO hearing would cause a reversal upon judicial review, merely on the basis of the officer’s unexplained non-appearance at time of hearing. There should be a means of insuring that an otherwise sustainable case is not dismissed or reversed due to the excusable non-appearance or failure of an officer to notify the office prior to hearing. Hence, the good cause for the continuance to be ordered initially by the hearing officer should be the non-appearance itself. Since the hearing officer is mandated by statute to control and conduct the hearing, the discretion to determine good cause for non-appearance upon later examination or testimony should rest in the hearing officer's hands.

Your Committees have amended the measure by clarifying that when an officer informs a person suspected of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol of the sanctions contained in sections 291E-41 and 291E-65, Hawaii Revised Statutes, the officer shall only be required to inform the person of the applicable sanctions, rather than all of the sanctions contained in both sections.

Your Committees believe that the measure will assist the Judiciary in effectively administering the State's Administrative Driver's License Revocation Program.

As affirmed by the records of votes of the members of your Committees on Transportation, Military Affairs and Government Operations and Tourism and Intergovernmental Affairs that are attached to this report, your Committees are in accord with the intent and purpose of S.B. No. 2628, as amended herein, and recommend that it pass Second Reading in the form attached hereto as S.B. No. 2628, S.D. 1, and be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.