CourtListener 10856440

Gesamter Gesetzestext

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
08-MAY-2026
08:02 AM
Dkt. 58 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

HEATHER BATES, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS, Respondent-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
HONOLULU DIVISION
(CASE NO. 1DAA-24-00005)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.)

In this secondary appeal, Petitioner-Appellant Heather
Bates (Bates) challenges the district court's order affirming
the two-year revocation of her driver's license by the
Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office (ADLRO). We
affirm.
Bates appeals from the District Court of the First
Circuit's (District Court)1 November 27, 2024 "Decision and Order
Sustaining Administrative Revocation" (Revocation Order).2 Bates

1 The Honorable David M. Hayakawa presided.
2 Bates does not identify or attach the District Court's December
2, 2024 "Judgment on Appeal" (Judgment). We construe Bates's appeal to also
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

filed her Petition for Judicial Review of the ADLRO decision
(Petition) on April 9, 2024.
Bates's Petition before the District Court argued,
inter alia, that the roadblock violated Bates's constitutional
privacy rights under State v. Heapy, 113 Hawaiʻi 283, 151 P.3d
764 (2007)3 by failing to provide a legal means to avoid the
roadblock, and that the Honolulu Police Department (HPD)
provided insufficient advance notice of the roadblock such that
legally avoiding it was impossible. Bates also argued that the
ADLRO "erred when [it] considered [Standardized Field Sobriety
Tests (SFSTs)] as proof of impairment by marijuana" because
SFSTs are "irrelevant" to "an analysis of impairment by
marijuana" for a "probable cause determination."
On appeal, Bates raises two points of error (POEs),4
contending that the District Court erred by (1) "rul[ing] that
the police do not have an affirmative duty to provide a legal
way to avoid a police DUI roadblock" and (2) finding that
"probable cause existed to arrest Bates for any manner of OVUII
and that there was a preponderance of evidence to believe that
Bates was OVUII by reason of marijuana consumption."
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve the
contentions as follows.

appeal from the Judgment. See State v. Graybeard, 93 Hawaiʻi 513, 516, 6 P.3d
385, 388 (App. 2000) (construing appellant's notice of appeal to appeal from
judgment not attached to the notice of appeal).
3 Heapy is summarized infra.
4 Bates's POEs omit required record references for where the
alleged errors were brought to the District Court's attention. See Hawaiʻi
Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4)(iii).
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(1) Bates argues that because the Heapy defendant was
"afforded a way to avoid the roadblock[,]" the Heapy court "thus
sent the clear message that roadblocks, in order to be
constitutional, in Hawaii, must afford a driver a legal way to
avoid contact with the police[.]"
Bates's Heapy interpretation is incorrect. In Heapy,
a defendant driver "made a legal right turn" onto a road; "the
turn was not made erratically, and [the driver's] headlights
were on." Id. at 292, 151 P.3d at 773. A police officer
followed the driver but "did not observe Defendant driving
suspiciously or in an erratic manner" before the police officer
effected an investigatory stop. Id. The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court
held that the driver's legal attempt to avoid a roadblock does
not in itself provide reasonable suspicion for police officers
to carry out an investigatory stop. Id. at 285, 151 P.3d at
766. Heapy contains no discussion supporting the proposition
that police officers must affirmatively provide a lawful means
for motorists to avoid a roadblock. See id.; see also Akiona v.
Admin. Dir. of Cts., CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2025 WL 3124682, at *1
(Haw. App. Nov. 7, 2025) (SDO) (holding that "police do not have
an affirmative duty to provide a legal way to avoid a DUI
roadblock").
Here, unlike the investigatory stop in Heapy, Bates
drove directly into the roadblock and her vehicle was lawfully
stopped by HPD officers according to a predetermined sequence.
The police officers had no affirmative duty to provide Bates
with a legal means of avoiding the roadblock.
Accordingly, the District Court correctly ruled that
under Heapy, "[p]olice are not required to provide a motorist
with a legal method of avoiding a roadblock." See McGrail v.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Admin. Dir. Of Cts., 130 Hawaiʻi 74, 78, 305 P.3d 490, 494 (App.
2013) (reviewing administrative revocations of a driver's
license "to determine if the District Court was right or wrong
in its decision" (citation omitted)).
(2) Bates argues that the HPD lacked probable cause
for her arrest because Bates "exhibited no 'bad' driving" and
SFST results are "not only irrelevant to marijuana impairment
but also dangerous because of the number of false positives."
Bates relies on Commonwealth v. Gerhardt, 477 Mass. 775, 81
N.E.3d 751 (2017), which noted "ongoing disagreement among
scientists" regarding whether SFSTs "are indicative of marijuana
impairment" and opined that SFST performance, alone, "is not
sufficient to support a finding that a defendant's ability to
drive safely was impaired due to the consumption of
marijuana[.]" Id. at 781, 785, 81 N.E.3d at 757, 760. Bates
also argues that HPD officers' observations that Bates
"smell[ed] of marijuana" and had "red and or watery" eyes are
"not indicative of impairment[.]" These arguments lack merit.
Probable cause "is established by a state of facts as
would lead a person of ordinary caution or prudence to believe
and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of
the accused." State v. Russo, 141 Hawaiʻi 181, 194, 407 P.3d
137, 150 (2017) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
Probable cause "is generally based upon a combination of
factors, which together form a sort of mosaic, of which any one
piece by itself often might not be enough to constitute probable
cause, but which, when viewed as a whole, does constitute
probable cause." State v. Ferrer, 95 Hawai‘i 409, 430-31,
23 P.3d 744, 765-66 (App. 2001) (citation omitted).

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Here, the record reflects that Bates's SFST
performance provided a relevant piece of the probable cause
mosaic. The police officers noted coordination and balance
issues during Bates's SFST, observing that she repeatedly
stepped off the line during the walk and turn test and swayed
and used her arms for balance during the one leg stand test.
These observations, combined with Bates's admission that she had
smoked marijuana four hours earlier and police officers'
observations that Bates had red and glassy eyes, smelled of
burnt marijuana, and displayed bodily tremors, would lead an
ordinary person to believe that Bates was OVUII due to marijuana
consumption. See Thedford v. Admin. Dir. of Cts., No. CAAP-23-
0000079, 2025 WL 1993426, at *2-3 (Haw. App. July 17, 2025)
(SDO) (concluding that there was probable cause for the OVUII
arrest where the driver had "red, watery, and bloodshot" eyes,
smelled of burnt marijuana, "could not keep his balance during
the instructional stage of the SFST," and exhibited "swaying"
and sustained balance issues during several stages of the SFST,
because the driver's SFST performance provided "relevant and
probative evidence" of the driver's "balance, coordination,
mental acuity, and other skills required to safely operate a
vehicle").
Accordingly, the District Court correctly concluded
that there was probable cause to arrest Bates for OVUII and that
there was a preponderance of the evidence that Bates was OVUII
due to marijuana. See Russo, 141 Hawaiʻi at 188, 407 P.3d at 144
(reviewing probable cause determinations under a de novo
standard on appeal); McGrail, 130 Hawaiʻi at 78, 305 P.3d at 494.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the District
Court's November 27, 2024 Revocation Order and the December 2,
2024 Judgment.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, May 8, 2026.
On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Kevin O'Grady,
Chief Judge
for Petitioner-Appellant.
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Alyssa-Marie Y. Kau,
Associate Judge
Deputy Attorney General
for Respondent-Appellee.
/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Associate Judge