Voellmy v. Broderick
91 Haw. 125, 1999 Haw. App. LEXIS 101, 980 P.2d 999 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An arresting officer's failure to issue a mandatory temporary driver's permit after a DUI arrest does not invalidate the subsequent administrative license revocation; the proper remedy is to grant the driver a credit for the period they were improperly denied driving privileges.
Facts:
- Honolulu Police Department Officer Robert Steiner observed a vehicle, driven by Mark W. Voellmy, speeding and turning into a parking lot.
- In the parking lot, Officer Steiner approached Voellmy, smelled alcohol, and administered a horizontal gaze nystagmus test, which Voellmy failed.
- Officer Steiner warned Voellmy not to drive but did not arrest him at that time.
- Shortly thereafter, Officer Steiner observed Voellmy driving the same vehicle and running a stop sign.
- Officer Steiner stopped Voellmy, again noted signs of intoxication, and administered a field sobriety test, which Voellmy failed.
- Officer Steiner arrested Voellmy for DUI.
- At the police station, Voellmy refused to submit to a blood or breath test to measure his blood alcohol concentration.
- Officer Steiner confiscated Voellmy's license and issued a notice of revocation, incorrectly marking a box to indicate that the notice was not a temporary driving permit.
Procedural Posture:
- Following Mark W. Voellmy's arrest for DUI, his driver's license was administratively revoked.
- Voellmy requested an administrative hearing to review the revocation.
- The hearing officer denied Voellmy's request to subpoena police dispatch tapes and sustained the revocation, but granted him a 25-day credit against his suspension.
- Voellmy filed a petition for judicial review of the administrative decision in the district court of the first circuit (a trial-level court).
- The district court issued a decision and order affirming the administrative revocation.
- Voellmy (Petitioner-Appellant) appealed the district court's decision, bringing the case before the Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaiʻi.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an arresting officer's failure to issue a mandatory temporary driver's permit, in violation of statute, require the reversal of an administrative driver's license revocation?
Opinions:
Majority - Acoba, J.
No. An arresting officer's failure to comply with the mandatory statutory duty to issue a temporary driver's permit does not require reversal of the administrative license revocation. The court reasoned that while the statute's use of the word 'shall' imposes a compulsory, non-discretionary duty on the officer, the statute does not specify that reversal is the remedy for a violation. The legislative intent of the administrative revocation scheme is to decrease death and injury from drunk driving, a policy that would be undermined by reversing a valid revocation on procedural grounds unrelated to the merits of the DUI stop. The appropriate remedy is to cure the prejudice suffered by the driver, which the hearing officer correctly did by granting Voellmy a credit against his suspension period for the days he was wrongfully denied driving privileges. The court also held that the hearing officer did not abuse her discretion by denying the subpoena for police dispatch tapes, as the officer's subjective motive for the stop was irrelevant because an undisputed, objective basis for the stop (running a stop sign) existed.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that not all violations of mandatory statutory duties by law enforcement will void an administrative action. It prioritizes a remedial approach over a punitive one, focusing on curing any prejudice to the individual rather than invalidating the entire proceeding. This precedent guides lower courts to fashion remedies proportional to the harm caused by a procedural error, thereby upholding the public policy objectives of the underlying statute. It reinforces the principle that a driver's license revocation for DUI will be upheld if there was a valid basis for the stop and arrest, even if subsequent procedural errors occur, provided those errors can be adequately remedied.
