13 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Hawaii courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2001(Emphasis in original.) The State argues that “[w]hen an alleged defect in the HPD-396B sanctions form could not possibly have contributed to the driver’s refusal to submit to a breath or blood test, there is no basis for overturning the license revocation, under Wilson or any other case.” In Wilson, the dissenting opinion noted that “[the defendant] has never asserted that he would have refused the test had he received a full explanation of the penalties under Gray [v. Administrative Director of the Court, 84 Hawai'i 138 , 931 P.2d 580 (1997)].” Wilson, 92 Hawai'i at 60 , 987 P.2d at 283 . 2001(Emphasis in original.) The State argues that “[w]hen an alleged defect in the HPD-396B sanctions form could not possibly have contributed to the driver’s refusal to submit to a breath or blood test, there is no basis for overturning the license revocation, under Wilson or any other case.” In Wilson, the dissenting opinion noted that “[the defendant] has never asserted that he would have refused the test had he received a full explanation of the penalties under Gray [v. Administrative Director of the Court, 84 Hawai'i 138 , 931 P.2d 580 (1997)].” Wilson, 92 Hawai'i at 60 , 987 P.2d at 283 . | 1 | 5 |
State v. Yong Shik Wongreen2 sentences2025Here, the implied consent form sufficiently informed Nguyen, in accordance with the applicable statute, that he "may refuse to submit to a breath or blood test, or both for the purpose of determining alcohol concentration." Thus, the 4 In Won, the supreme court suppressed the defendant's BAC test, and held that the implied consent form in that case was coercive because of "the threat of the criminal sanction communicated by the [i]mplied [c]onsent [f]orm for refusal to submit to a BAC test." 137 Hawaiʻi at 347, 372 P.3d at 1082 . 5 Nguyen's reliance on Hawaiʻi caselaw mandating advisements of 2018The form advised Won that he could refuse to submit to a breath or blood test to determine his alcohol concentration, but that if he refused, he "shall be subject to up to thirty days imprisonment and/or fine up to $1,000 or the sanctions of 291E-65, if applicable." Id. at 335 , 372 P.3d at 1070 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Entrekingreen2 sentences2005Entrekin noted that HRS § 286-151.5 provided in relevant part: "If a person under arrest for driving after consuming a measurable amount of alcohol, pursuant to section 291-4.3, refuses to submit to a breath or blood test, none shall be given, except as provided in section 286—163[.]” HRS § 286-151.5 has been repealed and reenacted, in amended form, as HRS § 291E-15[.] 98 Hawai'i at 223 n. 3, 47 P.3d at 338 n. 3. 11 . 2005Entrekin noted that HRS § 286-151.5 provided in relevant part: "If a person under arrest for driving after consuming a measurable amount of alcohol, pursuant to section 291-4.3, refuses to submit to a breath or blood test, none shall be given, except as provided in section 286—163[.]” HRS § 286-151.5 has been repealed and reenacted, in amended form, as HRS § 291E-15[.] 98 Hawai'i at 223 n. 3, 47 P.3d at 338 n. 3. 11 . | 1 | 2 |
Cecelia Yin v. State of California Daryll Tsujihara Linda Nicholson Robert Catale and Tony Sunserigreen1 sentence2015See Zap v. United States, 328 U.S. 624, 628 (1946) (holding that Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights could yield as a condition of a contractor’s agreement with the government); Yin v. California, 95 F.3d 864, 872 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that a state employee’s union “contract may under appropriate circumstances diminish (if not extinguish) legitimate expectations of privacy”); Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309 , 317—18 (1971) (conditioning receipt of welfare benefits upon home visits found valid). 42 Implicit in the dissent’s argument is that by criminalizing the right to refuse to submit to a brea | 1 | 1 |
Zap v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2015See Zap v. United States, 328 U.S. 624, 628 (1946) (holding that Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights could yield as a condition of a contractor’s agreement with the government); Yin v. California, 95 F.3d 864, 872 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that a state employee’s union “contract may under appropriate circumstances diminish (if not extinguish) legitimate expectations of privacy”); Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309 , 317—18 (1971) (conditioning receipt of welfare benefits upon home visits found valid). 42 Implicit in the dissent’s argument is that by criminalizing the right to refuse to submit to a brea | 1 | 1 |
Coon v. City and County of Honolulugreen1 sentence2004Furthermore, En-trekin held that "the nonconsensual extraction of a blood sample from Entrekin pursuant to HRS § 286-163 violated neither the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution nor article 1, section 7 of the Hawai'i Constitution, notwithstanding the fact that the police had not placed him under arrest prior to obtaining the blood sample.” 98 Hawai'i at 233, 47 P.3d at 348 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gray v. Administrative Director of Court
green
2 sentences2001(Emphasis in original.) The State argues that “[w]hen an alleged defect in the HPD-396B sanctions form could not possibly have contributed to the driver’s refusal to submit to a breath or blood test, there is no basis for overturning the license revocation, under Wilson or any other case.” In Wilson, the dissenting opinion noted that “[the defendant] has never asserted that he would have refused the test had he received a full explanation of the penalties under Gray [v. Administrative Director of the Court, 84 Hawai'i 138 , 931 P.2d 580 (1997)].” Wilson, 92 Hawai'i at 60 , 987 P.2d at 283 . 2001(Emphasis in original.) The State argues that “[w]hen an alleged defect in the HPD-396B sanctions form could not possibly have contributed to the driver’s refusal to submit to a breath or blood test, there is no basis for overturning the license revocation, under Wilson or any other case.” In Wilson, the dissenting opinion noted that “[the defendant] has never asserted that he would have refused the test had he received a full explanation of the penalties under Gray [v. Administrative Director of the Court, 84 Hawai'i 138 , 931 P.2d 580 (1997)].” Wilson, 92 Hawai'i at 60 , 987 P.2d at 283 . | 2 | 2000–2001 |
State v. Severino
green
2 sentences1991The State responded that under State v. Severino, 56 Haw. 378 , 537 P.2d 1187 (1975), the State is not required to allow the defendant to consult with an attorney prior to submitting to a breath or blood test and no rights of the defendant were violated. 1991The State responded that under State v. Severino, 56 Haw. 378 , 537 P.2d 1187 (1975), the State is not required to allow the defendant to consult with an attorney prior to submitting to a breath or blood test and no rights of the defendant were violated. | 2 | 1990–1991 |
Wyman v. James
green
1 sentence2015See Zap v. United States, 328 U.S. 624, 628 (1946) (holding that Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights could yield as a condition of a contractor’s agreement with the government); Yin v. California, 95 F.3d 864, 872 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that a state employee’s union “contract may under appropriate circumstances diminish (if not extinguish) legitimate expectations of privacy”); Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309 , 317—18 (1971) (conditioning receipt of welfare benefits upon home visits found valid). 42 Implicit in the dissent’s argument is that by criminalizing the right to refuse to submit to a brea | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Busby
green
1 sentence1995Further *61 more, this court reasoned that “prosecutors are empowered to try cases of refusal to submit to a breath or blood test, a characteristic common to traffic rather than civil proceedings.” Id. (citation omitted). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Winchester
neutral
2 sentences1990In addition, prosecutors are empowered to try cases of refusal to submit to a breath or blood test, see State v. Winchester, 69 Haw. 600 , 752 P.2d 105 (1988), a characteristic common to traffic rather than civil proceedings. 1990In addition, prosecutors are empowered to try cases of refusal to submit to a breath or blood test, see State v. Winchester, 69 Haw. 600 , 752 P.2d 105 (1988), a characteristic common to traffic rather than civil proceedings. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Uehara
green
2 sentences1990Furthermore, HRS § 286-155 is intended to facilitate enforcement of the DUI statute, see State v. Uehara, 68 Haw. 512 , 721 P.2d 705 (1986), and it is clear that DUI is a traffic offense. 1990Furthermore, HRS § 286-155 is intended to facilitate enforcement of the DUI statute, see State v. Uehara, 68 Haw. 512 , 721 P.2d 705 (1986), and it is clear that DUI is a traffic offense. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.