Sylvester v. Admin. Dir. of the Courts

• Decision Date: 13 September 2021
• Docket Number: SCWC-17-0000004
• Citation: 494 P.3d 1219,149 Hawai‘i 486
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Parties: Brent K. SYLVESTER, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant, v. ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF the COURTS, State of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Respondent-Appellee.

149 Hawai‘i 486

494 P.3d 1219

Brent K. SYLVESTER, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant,

v.ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF the COURTS, State of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Respondent-Appellee.

SCWC-17-0000004

Supreme Court of Hawai‘i.

SEPTEMBER 13, 2021

Alen M. Kaneshiro, for petitioner

Ewan C. Rayner, (Kimberly T. Guidry and Robert T. Nakatsuji, Honolulu, on the briefs) for respondent

RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, McKENNA, WILSON, AND EDDINS, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY EDDINS, J.

An Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office hearing officer revoked Brent Sylvester's driver's license after finding probable cause to support Sylvester's arrest for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant.

Three civilian witnesses wrote statements on a standard Honolulu Police Department form (HPD-252). They described Sylvester's conduct and interactions with them after he purportedly rear-ended their car. Two police officers’ sworn statements referenced the witnesses’ accounts.

The hearing officer considered the civilian witnesses’ HPD-252 statements. The hearing officer also considered the witnesses’ statements incorporated in the police officers’ sworn statements. Sylvester objected.

The District Court of the First Circuit sustained the license revocation. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision.

We address whether administrative driver's license revocation hearing officers can consider civilian witnesses’ unsworn statements when making probable cause determinations.

We hold they can. The administrative license revocation laws – namely, HRS §§ 291E-36, 291E-37(c), and 291E-38(g)¹ - do not require sworn statements from civilian witnesses. Instead, the sworn statement requirement only covers (1) law enforcement officers, (2) persons who administer alcohol or drug tests, and (3) those who maintain the testing equipment.

I.

In April 2016, three people traveled in a Nissan on the H-1 freeway. A Toyota rear-ended them; it did not stop. The Toyota sped past the Nissan. One person in the Nissan called 911 and reported "a hit and run." The Nissan followed the Toyota. The caller told the 911 operator that the Toyota was "swerving" and "almost slammed [into] the median."

Later the Nissan's three occupants wrote statements on an HPD-252 form. Each detailed the rear-end collision and the Toyota's flight. The witnesses also described following the Toyota to a Kailua residence. There they briefly confronted the driver. Because of how he smelled, spoke, and walked, the witnesses believed he was intoxicated. When police officers arrived, they identified Sylvester as the driver.

The HPD-252 forms contained a preprinted declaration: "I attest that this statement is true and correct and to the best of my knowledge, and that I gave this statement freely and voluntarily without coercion or promise of reward."² The witnesses signed their names.

HPD officers responded to Sylvester's residence. For the administrative revocation proceedings, two officers submitted sworn statements.³ They detailed the circumstances surrounding Sylvester's arrest. One officer described the damages to the two cars. The other officer wrote that he smelled alcohol on Sylvester's breath as he spoke to him. The officer further reported: "[Sylvester] blurted out that he just had a ‘few’ when he got home." Sylvester declined a field sobriety test and a preliminary alcohol screening test. The officer arrested him for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII). He read an implied consent and other required notice forms to Sylvester. Sylvester refused to take a breath or blood test. The officer issued him a notice of administrative revocation.

Four days later, an Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office review officer revoked Sylvester's driver's license.

Sylvester requested an administrative hearing. At the hearing, he moved to strike the three witnesses’ HPD-252 statements. Sylvester also moved to strike the civilian witnesses’ statements contained in the sworn police statements. The hearing officer denied the motion.

After considering the HPD-252 statements, 911 recording, and sworn police statements,⁴ the hearing officer found probable cause that Sylvester operated his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The officer sustained the initial administrative revocation of Sylvester's driver's license.

Although their rationale differed, the district court and the ICA affirmed the hearing officer's decision. The district court ruled that "other person[s]," whose sworn statements the hearing officer must consider under HRS § 291E-38(g),⁵ include the civilian witnesses. It also ruled that their HPD-252 statements were not sworn. Despite these determinations, the district court upheld the license revocation. It reasoned that the sworn police statements incorporating "the witnesses’ statements and/or information" provided a sufficient basis to find probable cause for Sylvester's arrest.

The ICA implicitly rejected the district court's reasoning that HRS § 291E-38(g) ’s sworn statement requirement encompassed civilian witnesses. It read the term "other person" in HRS § 291E-38(g) to mean only "the person who conducted the [intoxication] test" or "the person responsible for the maintenance of the testing equipment" as specified in HRS § 291E-36. We agree with the ICA.

II.

In administrative driver's license revocation proceedings, we hold that hearing officers can consider civilian witnesses’ unsworn statements.

After inspecting the texts and context of HRS §§ 291E-36, 291E-37(c), and 291E-38(g), we conclude that these laws do not impose a sworn statement requirement on civilian witnesses. They only require sworn statements from (1) law enforcement officers, (2) persons who administer alcohol or drug tests, and (3) those who maintain the testing equipment. Civilian witnesses’ statements - both independently through HPD-252 statements and as embedded in sworn police statements – can support probable cause in license revocation proceedings.

HRS Chapter 291E, Part III guides the administrative driver's license revocation process. It begins when an individual is arrested and issued a notice of administrative revocation.⁶ See generally HRS §§ 291E-31, 291E-33, 291E-34. Next, an administrative review officer examines the police officer's decision to issue the revocation notice. HRS § 291E-37(a). This initial review happens automatically. Id. Based solely on documentary evidence, including documents listed in HRS § 291E-36, the administrative review officer decides whether to revoke the driver's license. See generally HRS § 291E-37. If the review officer revokes the license, the driver can request an administrative hearing. HRS § 291E-38(a). If a hearing officer affirms the revocation after that administrative hearing, the driver can petition for judicial review. HRS § 291E-40(a).

Within the administrative driver's license revocation framework, a trio of intertwined laws - HRS §§ 291E-36, 291E-37(c), and 291E-38(g) - identify the types of documents that the administrative review and hearing officers must receive, consider, or admit into evidence.

HRS § 291E-36 lists what evidence must be submitted for administrative review immediately after an OVUII arrest.⁷ It calls for sworn statements from:

(1) "the arresting law enforcement officer" and "the officer who issued the notice of administrative revocation," HRS § 291E-36(a)(1), (b)(1)⁸ ;

(2) "the person responsible for maintenance of the [alcohol or drug] testing equipment," HRS § 291E-36(a)(2), (4) ; and

(3) "the person who conducted the [alcohol or drug] test," HRS § 291E-36(a)(3), (5).⁹

HRS § 291E-36 identifies no other person whose statement must be sworn.

In addition to these sworn statements, the administrative review officer receives other types of evidence: "a copy of the arrest report," HRS § 291E-36(a)(1), (b)(1) ; "the report of the law enforcement officer who issued the notice of administrative revocation to the person involved in a collision resulting in injury or death," HRS § 291E-36(a)(1) ; "a copy of the notice of administrative revocation," HRS § 291E-36(a)(6), (b)(2) ; any license taken into possession by law enforcement officers, HRS § 291E-36(a)(7), (b)(3) ; and the driver's prior alcohol and drug enforcement contacts. HRS § 291E-36(a)(8), (b)(4).

With the information received under HRS § 291E-36 and any evidence submitted by the driver, the administrative review officer conducts an initial review. HRS §§ 291E-36, 291E-37. At this stage, HRS § 291E-37(c) requires consideration of:

(1) "Any sworn or unsworn written statement or other written evidence provided by the respondent";

(2) "The breath, blood, or urine test results, if any"; and

(3) "The sworn statement of any law enforcement officer or other person or other evidence or information required by section 291E-36." (Emphases added.)

If the driver wants an administrative hearing after an adverse administrative review decision, HRS § 291E-38(g) requires the hearing officer to admit into evidence the sworn statements generated by HRS § 291E-36 and consider them if the individuals who made the sworn statements do not appear at the hearing.¹⁰

Both HRS §§ 291E-37(c)(3) and 291E-38(g) refer to the sworn statements of "other person" and HRS § 291E-36. The Administrative Director of the Courts maintains that "other person" means only those individuals identified in HRS § 291E-36 : the government employees conducting alcohol or drug tests or maintaining the testing equipment. Sylvester, in contrast, reads "other person" expansively to mean everyone who is not a law enforcement officer. He contends that civilian witnesses’ statements submitted by the government must be sworn.

The Director's interpretation prevails: "other person" does not mean a civilian witness. We conclude that HRS § 291E-38(g), like HRS § 291E-36, does not touch civilian witnesses’ statements.

Turning to HRS § 291E-38(g), its opening sentence - "The sworn statements ...