Haw. Rev. Stat. § 291-3.3
[L 1981, c 152, pt of §1; am L 1986, c 171, §5; am L 1987, c 33, §9; am L 2000, c 62, §3]
Based on the clear language of subsection (b) and §287-3(a), and because subsection (b) does not describe a "moving violation" which arises from the "operation of a motor vehicle", the district court disregarded the statutory requirements and abused its discretion in determining that a violation of subsection (b) was properly included as part of defendant's traffic abstract. 123 H. 293 (App.), 233 P.3d 713 (2010).
Where there was nothing in the record to base a conclusion that defendant intentionally relinquished any right to challenge an improper listing of a subsection (b) violation on defendant's abstract, and there was nothing to suggest the traffic abstract was contemplated or should have been contemplated before defendant admitted to the violation, or that defendant had actual or constructive knowledge that defendant's admission could lead to the violation appearing on defendant's abstract, the district court abused its discretion in concluding that defendant waived defendant's defenses or rights related to the abstract. 123 H. 293 (App.), 233 P.3d 713 (2010).