CourtListener 10759362

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
15-DEC-2025
07:45 AM
Dkt. 79 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

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

TREVOR K. TSUGAWA, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS, Respondent-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT,
HONOLULU DIVISION
(CASE NO. lDAA-23-00005)

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

This appeal concerns the Administrative Driver's
License Revocation Office's (ADLRO) denial of a subpoena for
disciplinary records of the officer who conducted the Operating
a Vehicle under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OVUII) traffic
stop in this case, where the defense contended the records were
relevant to credibility. We vacate and remand.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Petitioner-Appellant Trevor K. Tsugawa's (Tsugawa)
driver's license was administratively revoked after his OVUII
arrest. He appeals from the September 13, 2023 Decision and
Order, and the September 15, 2023 "Judgment on Appeal"
(Judgment) filed and entered by the District Court of the First
Circuit (District Court)1 in favor of the Respondent-Appellee
Administrative Director of the Courts (Director), which affirmed
the Director's March 28, 2023 decision to revoke Tsugawa's
driver's license for two years (ADLRO Decision).
Tsugawa raises a single point of error on appeal,
contending that the District Court erred in holding that the
ADLRO "did not erroneously interpret the law, act in an
arbitrary or capricious manner or commit an abuse of discretion"
when the ADLRO denied Tsugawa's request to issue a subpoena
duces tecum (SDT) for Honolulu Police Department (HPD)
Professional Standards Office (PSO) records regarding Sergeant
Jared Spiker (Sgt. Spiker). The SDT requested Sgt. Spiker's
disciplinary records "related to truthfulness/untruthfulness,"
among other things. Sgt. Spiker was the officer who initiated
the traffic stop of Tsugawa for "reasonable suspicion" based on
Tsugawa allegedly stopping beyond the "stop" line and crossing
lane markings, both of which Tsugawa disputed.
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
contention as follows.
Tsugawa requested an ADLRO hearing after receiving a
notice revoking his license for two years following his refusal
to submit to breath and blood tests during his OVUII arrest.

1 The Honorable Thomas A.K. Haia presided.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

During the course of the ADLRO hearing, Tsugawa made a November
4, 2022 request (First Request) for the ADLRO to issue the SDT
for Sgt. Spiker's pertinent records, which ADLRO denied. The
First Request requested "Form HPD-384 for [Sgt.] Spiker's 2021
PSO investigation."
In a letter dated December 9, 2022, Tsugawa submitted
an "Offer of Proof" that "Form HPD-384 for [Sgt.] Spiker's 2021
PSO investigation" would show that the deputy corporation
counsel "misrepresented in his letter to the [Director]" that
HPD had made no findings in any investigation against Sgt.
Spiker related to his truthfulness or veracity. Attached to the
Offer of Proof were "orders of five judges who [had] reviewed
the 2021 PSO investigation and determined that its contents
[did] sufficiently relate to [Sgt.] Spiker's truthfulness and
veracity." Tsugawa's counsel explained that "to the best of
[his] knowledge, every judge to review the 2021 PSO
investigation ha[d] determined that the materials ...
pertain[ed] to Sgt. Spiker's truthfulness and veracity."
Counsel asserted "[a]s an offer of proof," that the Form HPD-384
(also known as Personnel Performance Record) "would directly
contradict [Sgt.] Spiker's assertions" from the December 8, 2022
ADLRO hearing that "he was cleared, not disciplined, and did
nothing wrong."
On January 9, 2023, Tsugawa submitted a second request
to the ADLRO for the issuance of an SDT to HPD PSO (Second
Request) for all records "related to truthfulness/
untruthfulness" of Sgt. Spiker, and specified "Form HPD-384 for
[Sgt.] Spiker's 2021 PSO investigation." The Second Request was
also denied by ADLRO.
The March 28, 2023 ADLRO Decision sustained the
administrative revocation of Tsugawa's license, finding "[Sgt.

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

Spiker]'s version of the events [wa]s more credible than
[Tsugawa]'s version" and concluding that Sgt. Spiker "did have
reasonable suspicion to stop [Tsugawa]'s vehicle."
Tsugawa's April 26, 2023 "Petition for Judicial
Review" of the ADLRO Decision filed pursuant to Hawaii Revised
Statutes (HRS) § 291E-402 argued that: "[t]he ADLRO abused its
discretion by denying [Tsugawa]'s request to issue a subpoena";
"[t]he ADLRO could not make a finding that [Sgt.] Spiker had
[r]easonable [s]uspicion to stop [Tsugawa]"; and "[t]he ADLRO
improperly determined that [p]robable [c]ause existed to believe
[Tsugawa] operated a vehicle under the influence of an
intoxicant."
The District Court's September 13, 2023 Decision and
Order affirmed the ADLRO Decision, ruling that the denial of the
SDT was proper where Sgt. Spiker's credibility became an issue
only after there were "inconsistencies" between Sgt. Spiker's
and Tsugawa's testimony, as follows:
2. The Director Did Not Erroneously Interpret the Law

. . . .

The issue of [Sgt.] Spiker's veracity for
truthfulness arose after [Tsugawa] testified on March 23,
2023, when inconsistencies between [Tsugawa]'s sworn
testimony and the sworn statements of [Sgt.] Spiker were
brought forth. Up until that time, there was nothing in the
record suggesting that [Sgt.] Spiker's sworn statements or
testimony were inaccurate or untruthful. Therefore, the
Director did not erroneously interpret the law when he
twice denied [Tsugawa]'s requests for SDTs, as up to that
time nothing in the record existed to question [Sgt.]
Spiker's sworn statements or testimony as being
untrustworthy and/or untruthful, i.e., relevant.

2 Under HRS § 291E-40(c) (2020), the "sole issues before the court"
on judicial review of an administrative decision are whether the Director:
"(1) [e]xceeded constitutional or statutory authority; (2) [e]rroneously
interpreted the law; (3) [a]cted in an arbitrary or capricious manner;
(4) [c]ommitted an abuse of discretion; or (5) [m]ade a determination that
was unsupported by the evidence in the record."

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

3. The Director Did Not Act in an Arbitrary or
Capricious Manner

For the reasons outlined in the preceding paragraph
2, the Director did not act in an arbitrary or capricious
manner. . . . As has earlier been stated, the issue of
inaccurate sworn statements or testimony became apparent
only following [Tsugawa]'s testimony on March 23, 2023.
Because [Tsugawa] did not request a continuance to request
an SDT at that hearing, this court cannot find the Director
to have acted arbitrarily or capriciously.

4. The Director Did Not Commit an Abuse of Discretion

For the reasons outlined in the preceding paragraphs
2 and 3, the Director did not commit an abuse of
discretion.

Tsugawa points out that: "the District Court did not
rule that the HPD-384 was not relevant to Sgt. Spiker's
credibility, only that Tsugawa could not raise the issue or
attack Sgt. Spiker's credibility until other evidence was
adduced that contradicted Sgt. Spiker's testimony." Tsugawa
argues the District Court erred in concluding that the issue of
Sgt. Spiker's veracity "only arose after Tsugawa's testimony
disputing Sgt. Spiker's claims" and that "the SDT request was
effectively not ripe until Tsugawa testified." Tsugawa contends
that "credibility of a witness is always at issue"; he "had a
due process right to a fair hearing on his license revocation";
and the ADLRO's "refusal to issue the SDT for Sgt. Spiker's HPD
PSO reports was not harmless" because "the [hearings officer]
was not able to fairly assess Sgt. Spiker's credibility[,]" and
consequently "adopted Sgt. Spiker's version of the events and
rejected Tsugawa's version."
The credibility of a witness is "always relevant" and
a proper subject of cross-examination. State v. Cordeiro,
99 Hawaiʻi 390, 422, 56 P.3d 692, 724 (2002). In State v. Su,
the supreme court found that the district court erred in
precluding defense counsel's attempted cross-examination of

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

then-Officer Spiker during an OVUII trial to impeach his
credibility by specific instances of conduct probative of his
untruthfulness under Hawaiʻi Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 608(b).
147 Hawai‘i 272, 284, 465 P.3d 719, 731 (2020). HRE Rule 608(b)
allows the credibility of a witness to be attacked by
"[s]pecific instances of conduct" that are "probative of
untruthfulness[.]" Defense counsel in Su contended that the
specific instances of conduct evidencing Officer Spiker's
untruthfulness were contained in transcripts from three other
proceedings in which Officer Spiker testified for the State.
Id. at 274, 465 P.3d at 721. The Su court held that two out of
the three prior proceedings3 were relevant to Officer Spiker's
credibility and probative of untruthfulness, and the error
denying the cross-examination was not harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt because "the outcome of Su's trial hinged upon
the credibility of the two HPD witnesses against him." Id. at
285, 465 P.3d at 732 (citation omitted). Accordingly, the Su
court vacated Su's OVUII conviction and remanded, explaining
that Su was entitled to cross-examine Officer Spiker on the two
proceedings, with the extent of such examination subject to HRE
Rule 403. Id.
Here, Tsugawa sought to subpoena HPD disciplinary
records for Sgt. Spiker related to his truthfulness and
veracity. Such records were relevant where Sgt. Spiker was the
sole witness relied upon by the ADLRO hearings officer to

3 The "Kuni" ADLRO proceedings transcript reflected Officer
Spiker's admission "that he altered [a license revocation] form after having
given it to Kuni and before submitting it to ADLRO[,]" and showed that
Officer Spiker "submitted a falsely sworn statement to ADLRO." Su, 147
Hawaiʻi at 284, 465 P. 3d at 731. The "Thomas" proceedings involved still
photographs of a video recording that appeared to show "Thomas did not have
his fists clenched and was not throwing punches[,]" "contrary to Officer
Spiker's police report and trial testimony[.]" Id. at 285, 465 P.3d at 732.

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

establish whether reasonable suspicion existed to stop Tsugawa,
and where the hearings officer weighed the credibility of Sgt.
Spiker's and Tsugawa's conflicting statements in rendering the
ADLRO Decision. See id. at 284-85, 465 P.3d at 731-32; State v.
Estrada, 69 Haw. 204, 219, 738 P.2d 812, 823 (1987) (holding
that an officer's alleged falsifications on his employment
application were relevant to his credibility and should have
been admitted pursuant to HRE Rule 608(b)). The District Court
erred in upholding the ADLRO Decision and in denying the SDT on
grounds that Sgt. Spiker's credibility became relevant only
after Tsugawa's testimony contradicted Sgt. Spiker's. The
evidence sought by the SDT was relevant, and the District Court
erred as a matter of law by conditioning its relevance. See HRE
Rule 608(b); Su, 147 Hawai‘i at 284-85, 465 P.3d at 731-32;
Cordeiro, 99 Hawai‘i at 422, 56 P.3d at 724. The ADLRO's denial
of the SDT and the District Court's affirmation of that denial
were not harmless, where the ADLRO Decision specifically relied
on its assessment of Sgt. Spiker's credibility in determining
whether reasonable suspicion existed for Tsugawa's traffic stop.
Thus, the District Court was wrong in holding that the ADLRO did
not erroneously interpret the law, act in an arbitrary or
capricious manner, or commit an abuse of discretion by affirming
the ADLRO Decision. See Gray v. Admin. Dir. of the Ct., State
of Haw., 84 Hawai‘i 138, 144, 931 P.2d 580, 586 (1997) (reviewing
a secondary appeal by determining whether the District Court was
right or wrong in its decision).
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the September 13,
2023 Decision and Order and the September 15, 2023 Judgment
entered by the District Court of the First Circuit, and remand

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

for further proceedings consistent with this Summary Disposition
Order.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, December 15, 2025.
On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Alen M.K. Kaneshiro,
Chief Judge
for Petitioner-Appellant.
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Kodai S. Okano,
Associate Judge
for Respondent-Appellee.
/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Associate Judge