State v. Yong Shik Won
134 Haw. 59
Haw. App.2014Background
- Won was arrested for OVUII after speeding in Honolulu; he performed SFSTs and PAS with BAC 0.176 at the scene; at the station, police read the Implied Consent Form and Won agreed to breath testing, signing/initialing parts of the form; the breath test showed 0.170; the District Court denied suppression and convicted Won under HRS § 291E-61(a)(3); Won appealed arguing Miranda and related rights were violated and that McNeely undermines the statute; the court granted supplemental briefing after McNeely; the opinion analyzes Miranda, statutory rights, and the constitutionality of HRS § 291E-68 in the context of this typical OVUII case; the judgment should reflect only the (a)(3) conviction as a first offender.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Miranda applicability before implied consent reading | Won argues Miranda warnings were required before the implied consent reading. | State argues no interrogation occurred under totality of circumstances. | Miranda not implicated; no interrogation required. |
| Statutory right to counsel under HRS § 803-9 | Won asserts violation of right to consult counsel prior to testing. | State relies on Severino; § 803-9 not enforceable to suppress breath test. | No suppression; Severino controls; no constitutional violation. |
| Misinformation about sanctions for refusal (implied consent form) | Won contends form misinforms about sanctions, invalidating consent. | Implied sanctions were adequately conveyed as up to 30 days and contingent penalties. | Form adequately advised of sanctions; consent knowing and intelligent. |
| Effect of McNeely on HRS § 291E-68 constitutionality | Won claims McNeely renders § 291E-68 unconstitutional for breath tests. | McNeely does not control breath tests under implied consent; statute stands. | McNeely does not render § 291E-68 unconstitutional in this context. |
| Fourth Amendment warrant requirement for breath test | Won argues no warrant; breath test violates Fourth Amendment. | Breath test under implied consent is reasonable; no warrant required. | Breath test proper under Fourth Amendment and Article I, § 7. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (blood test; Fifth Amendment privilege; physical evidence not testimonial)
- Neville v. South Dakota, 459 U.S. 553 (U.S. 1983) (implied consent; questioning not interrogation; refusal evidence permissible)
- State v. Severino, 56 Haw. 378 (Haw. 1975) (arrested for OVUII; no Miranda warnings before testing; implied consent civil in nature)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1980) (interpretation of interrogation; routine custody context)
- State v. Ketchum, 97 Haw. 107 (Haw. 2001) (totality-of-circumstances approach to interrogation under Hawaii Constitution)
- Wilson v. State, 92 Hawai'i 45 (Haw. 1999) (misinformation about sanctions; knowing and intelligent consent standard)