Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries
Articles Posted in Supreme Court of Hawaii
State v. Shigemura
After being arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII) Defendant was taken to the police station, where he was read an implied consent form. Defendant elected to take a breath test, which resulted in a breath alcohol content reading above the legal limit. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the breath test results. The district court denied the motion to suppress. Thereafter, Defendant was convicted of OVUII. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgments of the lower courts, holding that, in accordance with State v. Won, the result of Defendant’s breath test was the product of a warrantless search, and therefore, Defendant’s OVUII conviction could not be upheld. Remanded. View "State v. Shigemura " on Justia Law
State v. Kernstock
After being arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII) Defendant was taken to the police station, where he was read an implied consent form. Defendant subsequently elected to take a breath test, which resulted in a breath alcohol content reading above the legal limit. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the breath test results. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress, and Defendant was convicted of OVUII. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgments of the lower courts, holding that, in accordance with State v. Won, the result of Defendant’s breath test was the product of a warrantless search, and therefore, Defendant’s OVUII conviction could not be upheld. View "State v. Kernstock " on Justia Law
State v. Mikawa
After being arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII) Defendant was taken to the police station, where he was read an implied consent form. The consent form conveyed a threat of imprisonment and punishment for refusal to submit to a breath test. Defendant subsequently elected to take a breath test, which resulted in a breath alcohol content reading above the legal limit. Defendant filed motions to suppress evidence of his breath test, arguing that he did not constitutionally consent to the breath test because his consent was coerced by the implied consent form. The district court denied Defendant’s motions to suppress. Defendant was convicted of OVUII. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgments of the lower courts, holding that, in accordance with State v. Won, the result of Defendant’s breath test was the product of a warrantless search, and therefore, Defendant’s OVUII conviction could not stand. View "State v. Mikawa " on Justia Law
State v. Richardson
Defendant was arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII) and was taken to the police station, where he was read an implied consent form. Defendant chose to take a breath test, which resulted in an elevated breath alcohol content reading. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the breath test result, arguing that his consent was coerced by the implied consent form. The motion to suppress was denied, and Defendant was adjudged guilty of OVUII. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated the district court’s judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the result of Defendant’s breath test was the product of a warrantless search. Remanded. View "State v. Richardson " on Justia Law
State v. Ling
Defendant was arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant and taken to the police station, where he was read an implied consent form. Defendant elected to take a breath test, which resulted in an elevated breath alcohol content reading. Defendant moved to suppress the breath test results, arguing that his Miranda rights were violated when he was asked, without Miranda warnings, if he wanted to refuse to take a blood alcohol test and that his statutory right to an attorney was violated. The district court denied the motion to suppress, and Defendant was convicted. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgments of the lower courts, holding that, in accordance with State v. Won, the result of Defendant’s breath test was the product of a warrantless search. Remanded. View "State v. Ling " on Justia Law
State v. Sailola
Defendant was arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant and taken to the police station, where he was read an implied consent form. Defendant elected to take a breath test. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the breath test results, arguing that his Miranda rights were violated when he was asked by the police, without Miranda warnings, if he wanted to refuse to take a blood alcohol test and that his right to an attorney was violated. The motion was denied, and Defendant was convicted. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, in accordance with State v. Won, the result of Defendant’s breath test was the product of a warrantless search, and the ICA erred by concluding that the district court properly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the breath test result. View "State v. Sailola " on Justia Law
State v. Parker
Defendant was arrested for suspicion of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII). Thereafter, Defendant was taken to the police station, where he was read an implied consent form. Defendant decided to take a breath test, which resulted in an elevated breath alcohol content reading. Defendant moved to suppress the breath test results on the basis that he did not knowingly or voluntarily consent to breath or blood testing. The district court denied the motion and convicted Defendant of OVUII. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgments of the lower courts, holding that, in accordance with State v. Won, the result of Defendant’s breath test was the product of a warrantless search due to the coercion engendered by the implied consent form. View "State v. Parker " on Justia Law
State v. Moniz
Defendant was arrested for suspicion of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant and subsequently taken to the police station, where he was read an implied consent form. Defendant elected to take a breath test, which resulted in an elevated breath alcohol content reading. Defendant moved to suppress the breath test results, arguing that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. The circuit court denied the motion. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the lower court’s judgments, holding that the result of Defendant’s breath test was the product of a warrantless search due to the coercion engendered by the implied consent form. Remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "State v. Moniz " on Justia Law
State v. Shimkus
Defendant was arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII) and taken to the police station. After reading an implied consent form, Defendant elected to take a breath test. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the breath test result. The district court denied the motion. Defendant was subsequently found guilty of OVUII. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA’s judgment on appeal and the district court’s judgment, holding that, in accordance with State v. Won, the result of Defendant’s breath test was the product of a warrantless search. Remanded. View "State v. Shimkus " on Justia Law
State v. Terasako
Petitioner was found guilty of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the district court erred in admitting his blood alcohol test results into evidence in violation of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights because the implied consent form that apprised him of the criminal refusal penalties was contrary to his constitutional right to withdraw his consent to a warrantless search. The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s judgment, holding that the result of Defendant’s blood test was the product of a warrantless search, and therefore, the district court erred in denying Petitioner’s motion to suppress the blood test result. View "State v. Terasako " on Justia Law