constitutionally guaranteed privilege in Hawaii

2023Rather, in conducting the SFST, the officer sought "an exhibition of 'physical characteristics of coordination.'" "Consequently, the field sobriety test was not rendered infirm by the constitutionally guaranteed privilege against compulsory self-incrimination." 151 Hawai#i at 274, 511 P.3d at 773 (emphases added) (brackets and ellipses omitted) (quoting Uchima, 147 Hawai#i at 84-85, 464 P.3d at 872-73 ).

2020Uchima, 147 Hawai#i at ___, 464 P.3d at 872-73 (original brackets and footnote omitted).

2022Id. at 300-301 , 687 P.2d at 550 (footnote omitted).

1992The record does not suggest that the setting was custodial or “of a nature likely to subjugate the defendant to the will of [his] examiner and undermine the constitutionally guaranteed privilege against self-incrimination.” Id.

2023Rather, in conducting the SFST, the officer sought "an exhibition of 'physical characteristics of coordination.'" "Consequently, the field sobriety test was not rendered infirm by the constitutionally guaranteed privilege against compulsory self-incrimination." 151 Hawai#i at 274, 511 P.3d at 773 (emphases added) (brackets and ellipses omitted) (quoting Uchima, 147 Hawai#i at 84-85, 464 P.3d at 872-73 ).

1992Hoffman submits, however, that he “was certainly a suspect and was not free to leave[.]” This court has stated that “[w]hile focus of the investigation upon the defendant, standing alone, will not trigger the application of the Miranda rule, it is an important factor in determining whether the defendant was subjected to custodial interrogation.” State v. Melemai, 64 Haw. 479, 481 , 643 P.2d 541, 544 (1982).

1992Hoffman submits, however, that he “was certainly a suspect and was not free to leave[.]” This court has stated that “[w]hile focus of the investigation upon the defendant, standing alone, will not trigger the application of the Miranda rule, it is an important factor in determining whether the defendant was subjected to custodial interrogation.” State v. Melemai, 64 Haw. 479, 481 , 643 P.2d 541, 544 (1982).

1984Cf. State v. Martin, 62 Haw. 364, 375 , 616 P.2d 193, 200 (1980) (compulsion to produce handwriting exemplars does not contravene the privilege against self-incrimination); State v. Severino, 56 Haw. 378, 381 , 537 P.2d 1187, 1189 (1975) (a person suspected of driving under the influence of intoxicants is not entitled to Miranda warnings before being required to submit to chemical tests prescribed by statute).

1984Cf. State v. Martin, 62 Haw. 364, 375 , 616 P.2d 193, 200 (1980) (compulsion to produce handwriting exemplars does not contravene the privilege against self-incrimination); State v. Severino, 56 Haw. 378, 381 , 537 P.2d 1187, 1189 (1975) (a person suspected of driving under the influence of intoxicants is not entitled to Miranda warnings before being required to submit to chemical tests prescribed by statute).

1984Cf. State v. Martin, 62 Haw. 364, 375 , 616 P.2d 193, 200 (1980) (compulsion to produce handwriting exemplars does not contravene the privilege against self-incrimination); State v. Severino, 56 Haw. 378, 381 , 537 P.2d 1187, 1189 (1975) (a person suspected of driving under the influence of intoxicants is not entitled to Miranda warnings before being required to submit to chemical tests prescribed by statute).

1984Cf. State v. Martin, 62 Haw. 364, 375 , 616 P.2d 193, 200 (1980) (compulsion to produce handwriting exemplars does not contravene the privilege against self-incrimination); State v. Severino, 56 Haw. 378, 381 , 537 P.2d 1187, 1189 (1975) (a person suspected of driving under the influence of intoxicants is not entitled to Miranda warnings before being required to submit to chemical tests prescribed by statute).