Background
On August 31, 2023, Honolulu Police Officer Kelsey Messmer stopped Marvin Judd’s vehicle after observing it accelerate at high speed (approximately 40 mph in a 25 mph zone) and make a sharp left turn with screeching tires. Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer observed Judd had glassy and watery eyes, slurred speech with delayed responses, and smelled a strong odor of alcoholic beverage on his breath. Judd refused to participate in standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs).
The Administrative Driver’s License Revocation Office (ADLRO) revoked Judd’s license for a four-year period based on the OVUII (operation of a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant) arrest. The Administrative Director of the Courts affirmed the revocation on July 12, 2024, and the District Court of the First Circuit affirmed that decision on September 26, 2024. Judd appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the administrative revocation of Judd’s driver’s license. The court rejected all three of Judd’s points of error.
First, the court held that SFSTs are not unreasonable searches, seizures, or invasions of privacy, citing the Hawaii Supreme Court’s longstanding precedent in State v. Wyatt.
Second, the court found that even assuming an error occurred in considering Judd’s SFST refusal as an inference of consciousness of guilt, any such error was harmless. The court determined that Officer Messmer’s direct observations of impairment—glassy and watery eyes, strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and delayed responses—were themselves sufficient to establish probable cause for the OVUII arrest. The court noted these observations constitute commonly recognized signs of impairment under Hawaii law.
Key Takeaways
- Field sobriety tests do not constitute unreasonable searches or seizures under Hawaii law and do not violate privacy rights.
- Probable cause for OVUII arrest can be established solely on an officer’s observations of impairment signs, without relying on SFST results or refusal to submit to such tests.
- An arrestee’s refusal to perform SFSTs may be considered as evidence, but such evidence is not necessary when independent observations of impairment exist.
- Administrative license revocation proceedings are reviewed for whether the decision was supported by evidence, exceeded statutory authority, erroneously interpreted law, or constituted an abuse of discretion.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important guidance for law enforcement and DUI prosecutions in Hawaii by confirming that officers need not rely on field sobriety tests to establish probable cause for OVUII arrests. The court’s holding emphasizes that the officer’s sensory observations—bloodshot eyes, odor of alcohol, slurred speech—standing alone satisfy the probable cause standard. This streamlines DUI enforcement where subjects refuse field tests, as those refusals need not undermine the government’s case.
The decision also reinforces Hawaii’s administrative license revocation framework and confirms that appellate courts conducting secondary review of administrative decisions apply the statutory standard of HRS § 291E–40, which limits judicial review to whether the director exceeded constitutional or statutory authority, erroneously interpreted law, acted arbitrarily or capriciously, abused discretion, or made findings unsupported by evidence.