State v. Yong Shik Won
372 P.3d 1065
Haw.2015Background
- On April 20, 2011 Yong Shik Won was arrested for OVUII (DUI) after traffic stop; at the station he was presented an Implied Consent Form and chose to take a breath test that registered .17 BAC.
- The Implied Consent Form advised Won that he could refuse testing but also stated that refusal would be a petty misdemeanor punishable by up to 30 days’ jail and fines under HRS §291E-68.
- Won moved to suppress the breath-test result, arguing his consent was coerced because the form criminalized refusal; the district court denied the motion and convicted Won; ICA affirmed.
- While on appeal the U.S. Supreme Court decided McNeely (addressing exigency for warrantless blood draws), prompting Won to renew his challenge that statutory criminalization of refusal rendered any “consent” involuntary under the Hawai‘i Constitution.
- The Hawai‘i Supreme Court held (majority) that bodily breath tests are searches; consent must be voluntary under totality of circumstances; informing a detainee that refusal is a crime (with possible imprisonment) is inherently coercive and precludes voluntary consent; suppression ordered and conviction vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Won) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Won’s submission to a warrantless breath test was voluntary consent to a search | Consent was coerced because Implied Consent Form made refusal a crime, forcing choice between constitutional rights and criminal liability | Consent was voluntary under the totality of circumstances; statutory sanctions merely enforce implied-consent bargain and do not automatically render consent involuntary | Held: Not voluntary — criminalizing refusal (threat of jail) is inherently coercive and invalidates consent under Haw. Const. art. I, §7 |
| Whether Hawaii’s implied-consent statutory scheme creates a per se exception to the warrant requirement | Argued the statute cannot override constitutional protections; consent must be actual and voluntary | State argued statutory compliance and advisals suffice; implied consent can be enforced by criminal penalties | Held: Statute cannot preclude constitutional inquiry; statutory “deemed” or irrevocable consent is contrary to law; voluntariness must be proved case-by-case |
| Applicability of Fourth Amendment/Article I, §7 exceptions (exigency, search-incident, special needs) | No exigency or other exception in this case; McNeely requires case-specific exigency showing for warrantless blood draws and similarly forecloses per se exceptions | State suggested McNeely limited to blood draws and argued breath-testing and implied-consent enforcement are reasonable; raised special-needs and reasonableness balancing | Held: No exception applied here; search was warrantless and could not be justified by exigency, search-incident, or special-needs doctrines on the record |
| Whether HRS §291E-68 (criminal refusal) is facially invalid or application-limited | Won sought suppression of his evidence based on application; majority declined to decide facial challenge but held application here invalid; concurrence argued statute facially invalid | State argued statute constitutional and enforcement legitimate policy tool to increase testing compliance | Held: Majority avoided broad facial invalidation but announced principle that criminal sanctions for refusal inherently preclude finding of voluntary consent in this context; concurrence would strike statute facially |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. 2013) (natural dissipation of alcohol does not create a per se exigency to justify warrantless blood draws)
- Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (U.S. 1989) (breath/blood testing constitutes a search implicating bodily integrity)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (voluntariness of consent determined under totality of the circumstances)
- Nakamoto v. Fasi, 635 P.2d 946 (Haw. 1981) (government-imposed condition to exercise a privilege triggers unconstitutional-conditions analysis; consent coerced where person reasonably believed they had no alternative)
- State v. Ganal, 917 P.2d 370 (Haw. 1996) (warrantless searches unreasonable per se absent established exceptions; consent exception requires careful scrutiny)