Hawaii OVUII Defense and ADLRO Administrative License Revocation Package

HAWAII OVUII DEFENSE AND ADLRO ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE REVOCATION PACKAGE

PART 1 — OVUII / ADLRO TIMELINE SUMMARY AND INTAKE

TIMELINE (alcohol-related offense; calendar days)

Client Intake Snapshot

PART 2A — REQUEST TO RECONSIDER ADMINISTRATIVE REVOCATION (AUTOMATIC REVIEW — § 291E-37)

State of Hawaii Judiciary
Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office (ADLRO)

REQUEST TO RECONSIDER ADMINISTRATIVE REVOCATION

Pursuant to HRS § 291E-37, Respondent submits the following written information demonstrating why Respondent's license and privilege to operate a vehicle should not be administratively revoked.

Grounds (check and elaborate where applicable):

• ☐ Lack of reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop (HRS § 291E-38(e)(1)).
• ☐ Lack of probable cause to believe Respondent operated a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (HRS § 291E-38(e)(2)).
• ☐ The preponderance of the evidence does not show Respondent operated the vehicle under the influence (HRS § 291E-38(e)(3)(A)).
• ☐ No refusal of testing after proper advisement under HRS §§ 291E-11 and 291E-15.
• ☐ Foundational defects in the chemical test (calibration, deprivation period, certified operator, ISP/lab procedures).
• ☐ Blood draw lacked warrant, valid consent, or exigency (Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016)).

Conditional request for ignition interlock permit: If administrative revocation is sustained, Respondent requests an ignition interlock permit under HRS § 291E-44.5 / § 286-118.5; SR-22 proof of insurance is attached.

PART 2B — REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING (HRS § 291E-38) — 6-DAY DEADLINE

State of Hawaii Judiciary
Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office (ADLRO)

REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING

Pursuant to HRS § 291E-38(a), Respondent timely requests an administrative hearing to review the administrative revocation. Respondent further requests:

1. The hearing be scheduled within the statutory window (25 days from NOAR — alcohol; 39 days — drug);
2. Conditional issuance of an ignition interlock permit upon affirmance (§ 291E-44.5);
3. Subpoenas to compel attendance of and production by the witnesses listed below.

Issues to be raised (HRS § 291E-38(e)):

• ☐ Reasonable suspicion to stop, valid roadblock under §§ 291E-19, 291E-20, or testing pursuant to § 291E-21 (special-circumstances).
• ☐ Probable cause to believe Respondent operated a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant.
• ☐ Preponderance of the evidence that Respondent operated under the influence; or
• ☐ Preponderance that Respondent refused testing after proper § 291E-11 / § 291E-15 advisement.
• ☐ Foundational reliability of breath/blood/urine test (calibration, deprivation period, certified operator).
• ☐ Chain of custody (blood/urine).
• ☐ Compliance with arresting officer's NHTSA SFST training.

Subpoena requests (attach): ☐ Arresting officer ☐ Breath operator ☐ Phlebotomist ☐ ISP/State lab analyst ☐ Custodian of instrument records.

Document requests:

1. Sworn statement of arrest and probable cause;
2. NOAR and proof of issuance;
3. Breath test ticket; instrument calibration, accuracy verification, and maintenance records for 12 months pre-test and 3 months post-test;
4. Operator certifications;
5. Blood/urine lab reports, kit/lot, chain of custody, chromatograms, analyst notes;
6. Officer NHTSA SFST certifications and training records;
7. Dash/body-cam video and CAD logs.

PART 3 — DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY (CRIMINAL CASE)

Case No.: [________________________________]

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

Pursuant to HRPP 16, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and Haw. Const. art. I, §§ 7 and 14, Defendant requests:

1. Defendant's written, recorded, and oral statements.
2. Defendant's prior record.
3. Books, papers, documents, photographs, body-cam, dash-cam, station/booking video.
4. Tangible objects.
5. Results of scientific tests:
   - a. Breath test ticket(s); instrument data; calibration; accuracy verification; supervisor records;
   - b. Operator and supervisor certifications;
   - c. Blood/urine collection records, kit and lot information, lab notes, chromatograms;
6. Officer NHTSA SFST certifications and training.
7. CAD/dispatch records and 911 audio.
8. Officer disciplinary, Giglio, and Brady material.
9. Names and statements of witnesses; expert disclosures with CVs and reports.

PRESERVATION DEMAND

Defendant demands preservation of all electronic data, video, audio, breath instrument data, retained blood/urine aliquots, and instrument records pending resolution.

Dated: [__/__/____]

PART 4 — MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Case No.: [________________________________]

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Defendant moves to suppress all evidence and statements obtained as a result of the stop, detention, arrest, and chemical testing of Defendant on [__/__/____].

I. Unlawful Stop (Haw. Const. art. I, § 7; U.S. Const. amend. IV)

☐ Officer lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion under State v. Bolosan.
☐ Roadblock did not comply with §§ 291E-19, 291E-20 / State v. Quino.

II. Unlawful Detention / Scope and Duration

☐ Detention extended beyond the mission of the stop without independent reasonable suspicion (Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015)).

III. Lack of Probable Cause to Arrest

☐ SFSTs not administered per NHTSA; HGN foundation lacking under State v. Ferrer / Behrendt.
☐ Totality of circumstances insufficient.

IV. Implied Consent / Advisement / Right to Refuse

☐ Officer failed to give the § 291E-11 / § 291E-15 implied consent advisement.
☐ Coercive warning under State v. Won — submitting to breath/blood test was not voluntary because warnings invalidly threatened criminal sanction for refusal.
☐ Right to counsel before deciding on testing (where applicable).

V. Foundational Defects in Chemical Test

☐ Instrument calibration / accuracy verification deficient — State v. Wallace.
☐ Operator not certified or recertification lapsed.
☐ 15-minute deprivation period not maintained.
☐ Blood draw without warrant, consent, or exigency (Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016); Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013)); chain of custody broken.

VI. Statements / Miranda

☐ Custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings; suppress all statements.

Relief: Evidentiary hearing and suppression of all challenged evidence.

PART 5 — IGNITION INTERLOCK PERMIT APPLICATION

Ignition Interlock Permit Checklist

Petition

To: ADLRO Director

Respondent, [________________________________] (Hawaii DL # [____]), hereby applies for an Ignition Interlock Permit pursuant to HRS §§ 291E-44.5 and 286-118.5. Respondent attests:

1. Respondent is the operator named in the NOAR dated [__/__/____].
2. Respondent has installed an approved IID on every motor vehicle Respondent will operate.
3. Respondent maintains SR-22 motor vehicle insurance with [carrier], policy no. [____].
4. Respondent will carry the permit and a Hawaii ID at all times when operating an interlock-equipped vehicle.
5. Respondent will not operate any non-interlock vehicle, including any commercial motor vehicle, while permit is active.

Signature: [________________________________] Date: [__/__/____]

PART 6 — PLEA EVALUATION WORKSHEET

Statutory Exposure Snapshot (§ 291E-61; § 291E-61.5)

Plea Offer Worksheet

Suppression / Defense Posture

Client Acknowledgement

I have reviewed this worksheet with counsel, understand the elements, consequences, and collateral effects, and have had the opportunity to ask questions.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• HRS §§ 291E-11, 291E-15, 291E-21, 291E-33, 291E-34, 291E-37, 291E-38, 291E-41, 291E-44.5, 291E-61, 291E-61.5, 291E-62
• HRS § 286-118.5 (relicensing; IID)
• HRPP 16 (Discovery)
• Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)
• Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015); Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016); Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013)
• State v. Won, 137 Hawai'i 330; State v. Wallace, 80 Hawai'i 382; State v. Behrendt, 124 Hawai'i 90; State v. Bolosan, 78 Hawai'i 86
• ADLRO (Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office), 1001 Bishop Street, Suite 500, Honolulu, HI 96813 — https://www.courts.state.hi.us/courts/administrative/adlro
• ADLRO e-mail filing: [email protected]; fax (808) 534-6888

DISCLAIMER: This package is provided as an editable starting point and does not constitute legal advice. Hawaii's 6-day ADLRO hearing deadline is the shortest such deadline in the United States and is jurisdictional. Always verify current statutes, ADLRO procedures, and local court rules before filing.