Tominaga v. Dir. of the Courts
| Docket Number | CAAP-21-0000661 |
| Decision Date | 29 June 2023 |
| Parties | JOEN TOMINAGA, ADMINISTRATIVE Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS, STATE OF HAWAI 'I, Respondent-Appellee |
| Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION (CASE NO. 1DAA-21-00001)
Alen M. Kaneshiro and Christopher M. Phillips for Petitioner-Appellant.
Christopher J.I. Leong, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent-Appellee.
Petitioner-Appellant Joen Tominaga (Tominaga) appeals from the Decision and Order Affirming Administrative Revocation (Decision and Order), entered on October 20 2021, in the District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division (District Court ).[1] For the reasons explained below, we reverse.
On March 6, 2021, Tominaga was arrested for Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291E-61(a).[2] The arresting officer, Honolulu Police Department (HPD) Officer Dannan Smith (Officer Smith), issued a Notice of Administrative Revocation of Tominaga's driver's license.
On March 11, 2021, the Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office (ADLRO) issued a Notice of Administrative Review Decision, which sustained the revocation of Tominaga's driver's license for a one-year period from April 6, 2021, to April 5, 2022. Tominaga made a timely request for an administrative hearing to dispute the revocation. She also requested a copy of the "[e]ntire case file." See HRS § 291E-37(f)(5) (2020).[3]
On March 15, 2021, in response to the latter request, the ADLRO emailed 27 pages of materials to Tominaga's counsel. It appears that the ADLRO later acknowledged - after the record was closed and the administrative hearing decision was issued - that the materials provided to Tominaga were missing a page. See infra note 6 and accompanying text. Specifically, it appears that the materials did not include page one of the two-page Incident Report of HPD Sergeant Steven Chun (Sergeant Chun), who conducted the traffic stop of Tominaga's vehicle prior to her arrest.
The ADLRO scheduled the administrative hearing for April 1, 2021, to be held telephonically due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Tominaga objected to telephonic testimony and requested a continuance of the hearing. The hearing was continued to June 25, 2021. Tominaga subpoenaed Sergeant Chun, Officer Smith, Officer Drae Moon (Officer Moon), Sergeant Michael Noh (Sergeant Noh), and Sergeant Thomas Cummings (Sergeant Cummings) to appear at the hearing.
The June 25, 2021 hearing was held via Zoom due to the pandemic. All of the documents in the case file were admitted into evidence. All subpoenaed officers appeared except for Sergeant Cummings. Tominaga examined Sergeant Noh and waived the testimony of Sergeant Chun, Officer Moon, and Officer Smith. In closing argument, Tominaga argued, among other things, that the evidence did not support reasonable suspicion to stop Tominaga's vehicle on the night of her arrest:
Based on the reports that I have from [Sergeant] Chun he was the stopping officer. And, as far as I could see . . . no traffic violations of any sort in the incident report. I just see that . . . he comes to her vehicle and he's speaking to her. So, I don't see how there's any reasonable suspicion to even stop Miss Tominaga based upon that.
On June 29, 2021, Respondent-Appellee Administrative Director of the Courts (Director), through an ADLRO hearing officer, issued a Notice of Administrative Hearing Decision, which affirmed the ADLRO's March 11, 2021 Notice of Administrative Review Decision and amended the revocation end date to June 25, 2022.[4] The hearing officer's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision (ADLRO Decision) were also issued on June 29, 2021. The hearing officer determined, among other things, that there was reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle operated by Tominaga, concluding in part: [5]
On July 21, 2021, Tominaga's counsel submitted a Supplemental Declaration to the ADLRO stating in part that because "Sergeant Chun's testimony was waived[,] the only evidence for consideration from Sergeant Chun would be his police report submitted to the ADLRO[,]" and "[FOFs] 1-6 [in the ADLRO Decision] do not comport with the copy of Sergeant Chun's police report received by Counsel from the ADLRO." Counsel also stated that he relied on what was provided by the ADLRO as the purported "[e]ntire case file," and those materials did not include any sworn statements related to the stop of Tominaga's vehicle.
Page two of the administrative record appears to be a summary "FOR ADLRO OFFICE USE ONLY" of actions taken and other comments regarding Tominaga's case (ADLRO Summary). The ADLRO Summary includes a handwritten note dated "7/22/21," which appears to state the following:
Supplemental Declaration reviewed. Nothing requested in Supp. Decl. Counsel was provided page 2 of 2 of Chun's rpt, as well as the traffic citation issued by Chun, which both are sworn stmts. Counsel did not disclose missing page at hearing and instead waived the testimony of Chun, Moon &Smith. Counsel only had Noh testify. Counsel should have been aware of the missing page, but failed to raise the issue at hearing.
This note appears to acknowledge that the materials provided to Tominaga by the ADLRO were missing page one of Sergeant Chun's report.[6]
On July 27, 2021, Tominaga filed a Petition for Judicial Review (Petition) in the District Court, requesting that the court reverse the driver's license revocation. Tominaga contended in part that the ADLRO erroneously found that there was reasonable suspicion to stop her vehicle. Tominaga further alleged that she relied on what was provided by the ADLRO as the purported "entire case file[,]" and those materials did not establish any violation that would justify the stop of her vehicle. The District Court heard the Petition on August 31, 2021, and entered the Decision and Order on October 20, 2021. The court concluded that the ADLRO did not exceed its constitutional or statutory authority, erroneously interpret the law, act in an arbitrary or capricious manner, or commit an abuse of discretion. The District Court also concluded that the ADLRO's determination was supported by the evidence in the record and, specifically, that "the record on appeal supports [Director's] finding that [Sergeant] Chun had specific articulable facts that support reasonable suspicion to perform a traffic stop in this case." In this regard, the District Court also stated:
[Tominaga] argues that the facts in [Tominaga's] copy of [Sergeant] Chun's report did not establish the reasonable suspicion to stop [Tominaga's] vehicle and conjectures that [Director] had access to material which were [sic] not made available to [Tominaga]. However, [Tominaga] has failed to show any evidence in support of her argument that her copy of [Sergeant] Chun's report lacked the facts to establish the reasonable suspicion to stop [Tominaga's] vehicle. Without the specific information that was provided to [Tominaga] by ADLRO, and having reviewed the record on appeal, this court concludes [Director's] findings were supported by evidence.
This secondary appeal followed. Tominaga contends that the District Court erred: (1) in concluding there was no evidence in the record to support Tominaga's position that the version of the case file transmitted to her by the ADLRO did not contain facts establishing reasonable suspicion to stop her vehicle; and (2) in affirming the revocation of Tominaga's license, where the procedures used by the ADLRO in this case denied her due process.
Our review of the District Court's Decision and Order is a secondary appeal; we must determine whether the District Court was right or wrong in its review of the ADLRO Decision. Wolcott v. Admin. Dir. of the Courts, 148 Hawai'i 407, 413, 477 P.3d 847, 853 (2020).
As to Tominaga's first point of error, she contends there was substantial evidence supporting her position that the version of the case file she received from the ADLRO did not contain facts establishing reasonable suspicion. Specifically, she points out that the administrative record included the ADLRO Summary, which acknowledges in a handwritten note that the materials provided to Tominaga were missing a page from Sergeant Chun's report. Tominaga further contends that the materials provided to her by the ADLRO did not contain facts related to the stop of her vehicle.
The Director does not dispute that Tominaga requested "the entire case file" from the ADLRO or that the materials provided to Tominaga were missing a page, i.e., the first page of Sergeant Chun's report. There is also no dispute that the administrative record before the District Court included the ADLRO Summary, which acknowledges the omission. Further, the Director does not contest Tominaga's contention that the version of the case filed provided to her by the ADLRO, i.e., missing the first page of Sergeant Chun's report, did not contain facts to establish reasonable suspicion to stop Tominaga's vehicle. Our review of the record confirms that without the missing page, the materials provided to Tominaga would not have contained evidence supporting the District Court's finding of reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial