CourtListener 10844093

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
16-APR-2026
08:11 AM
Dkt. 33 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

LEANDRO LARA BICALHO, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS,
Respondent-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
HONOLULU DIVISION
(CASE NO. 1DAA-23-00008)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.)

Petitioner-Appellant Leandro Lara Bicalho appeals from

the District Court of the First Circuit's December 29, 2023

"Decision and Order Affirming Administrative Revocation and

Dismissing Appeal" and Judgment. 1

On appeal, Bicalho contends the district court was

wrong in determining that the denial of his request to issue a

subpoena was harmless.

1 The Honorable Bryant G.F.Y. Zane presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve this

appeal as discussed below, and affirm.

In January 2023, Bicalho was arrested for Operating a

Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OVUII). Honolulu

Police Department (HPD) Sergeant Jared Spiker (Sgt. Spiker) and

HPD Officer Alvin Koike (Officer Koike) observed Bicalho

driving, and HPD Officer C. Oallesma (Officer Oallesma)

conducted the field sobriety test.

Six days later, the Administrative Driver's License

Revocation Office (ADLRO) revoked Bicalho's license. Bicalho

requested a hearing.

The hearing was initially scheduled for February 2023,

but was continued several times at Bicalho's request. During

that time, the Hearings Officer granted subpoenas for, among

other things, (1) the officers' body-worn camera footage of the

arrest and (2) Sgt. Spiker's disciplinary record "and other

records showing his dishonesty and untruthfulness."

By the June 2023 hearing, the Hearings Officer

received the records related to Sgt. Spiker but the case was

continued so Bicalho could request the video footage mentioned

in State v. Su, 147 Hawaiʻi 272, 465 P.3d 719 (2020). To that

end, Bicalho requested to subpoena "Steven Alm, the Honolulu

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Prosecuting Attorney or custodian of potential discovery, for

the 'video of the incident at the ALA MOANA HOTEL discussed in

[Su] from State v. Thomas relating to [Sgt.] Spiker [(Thomas

Video)] which video has been previously provided to OVUII

defense attorneys in cases for arrests by Spiker.'"

The Hearings Officer denied Bicalho's request to issue

a subpoena for the Thomas Video. However, the Hearings Officer

"took administrative notice of [Su], specifically that 'the

still photograph of the [Thomas Video] show[s] that, contrary to

Officer Spiker's police report and trial testimony, Thomas did

not have his fists clenched and was not throwing punches.'"

(Third brackets in original.)

During the September 2023 hearing, Bicalho argued that

he could not properly question Sgt. Spiker without the Thomas

Video. The Hearings Officer affirmed the ADLRO's revocation of

Bicalho's license. 2

Bicalho petitioned the district court for judicial

review. The district court affirmed the revocation of Bicalho's

license.

The district court ruled that the Thomas Video was

relevant and the request for a subpoena was properly made and

2 The Hearings Officer affirmed the ADLRO's revocation in part,
amending the decision by deleting the finding that Bicalho refused to submit
to a breath or blood test and by reducing the revocation period to one year,
ending on February 19, 2024. Refusing the breath or blood test is not an
issue in this appeal.
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

not deficient and, thus, the Hearings Officer erred by denying

the request. However, the district court further ruled that the

Hearings Officer's error was harmless because, "[c]onsidering

the facts and circumstances of which Officer Koike was aware at

the time from his own observations and from the information

provided to him, there existed probable cause to believe

[Bicalho] had committed OVUII"; "[a]t the time of arrest, there

was more than a mere suspicion that [Bicalho] had committed

OVUII"; and "by the close of evidence there was proof by a

preponderance of the evidence in that it was more likely than

not that" Bicalho had committed OVUII.

Assuming, arguendo, the Hearings Officer erred in

denying Bicalho's request to issue a subpoena for the Thomas

Video, the district court was correct in determining the error

was harmless.

When considering whether error is harmless, the

question is whether "there is a reasonable possibility that the

error might have contributed" to the revocation of Bicalho's

license. See, e.g., State v. Sylva, 153 Hawaiʻi 447, 458, 541

P.3d 1210, 1221 (2023) (emphasis omitted). Under Hawaiʻi Revised

Statutes (HRS) § 291E-38(e) (2020), the administrative

revocation shall be affirmed only if (1) reasonable suspicion

existed to stop the vehicle, (2) probable cause existed to

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

believe the driver was OVUII, and (3) there was a preponderance

of the evidence showing the driver was OVUII. 3

Here, Bicalho argues he needed the Thomas Video to

properly impeach Sgt. Spiker. Thus, we look at whether there

was a reasonable possibility that the failure to impeach

Sgt. Spiker might have contributed to the revocation of

Bicalho's license. See, e.g., Sylva, 153 Hawaiʻi at 458, 541

P.3d at 1221. To do this, we disregard the evidence based on

Sgt. Spiker's observations and determine whether the evidence

based on Officers Koike's and Oallesma's observations supported

the Hearings Officer's decision.

Officer Koike observed Bicalho driving at 3:00 in the

morning with no headlights on. Officer Koike then saw Bicalho

"cross over a single solid white line" from lane 2 to lane 1 and

"immediately cross back into lane 2 unsafely, cutting off the

police blue and white vehicle." Based on Officer Koike's

3 HRS § 291E-38(e), "Administrative hearing; procedure; decision,"
provides in relevant part:

(e) The director shall affirm the administrative
revocation only if the director determines that:

(1) There existed reasonable suspicion to stop the
vehicle . . . .;

(2) There existed probable cause to believe that
the respondent operated the vehicle while under
the influence of an intoxicant; and

(3) The evidence proves by a preponderance that:

(A) The respondent operated the vehicle while
under the influence of an intoxicant[.]

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

observations, there was reasonable suspicion to stop Bicalho.

State v. Alvarez, 138 Hawaiʻi 173, 182, 378 P.3d 889, 898 (2016)

("To justify an investigative stop, . . . the police officer

must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which,

taken together with rational inferences from those facts,

reasonably warrant that intrusion."); State v. Kaleohano, 99

Hawaiʻi 370, 378, 56 P.3d 138, 146 (2002) (explaining that

initial stop was appropriate where defendant was swerving and

crossing double center line).

When Officer Koike approached Bicalho, Officer Koike

"immediately detected a strong odor of alcoholic type beverage

emanating from [Bicalho's] breath" and observed his "eyes to

[be] watery and glassy" and his "speech to be slurred."

Similarly, Officer Oallesma "observed a strong odor of alcohol

on [Bicalho's] breath and his eyes appeared red, watery, and

glassy." Officer Oallesma also observed that Bicalho "had a

hard time maintaining his balance." Bicalho told Officer

Oallesma "he had two to three beers."

Officer Oallesma conducted the field sobriety test.

As to the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test, Bicalho "exhibited six

out of a possible six clues." As to the Walk and Turn Test,

Bicalho "exhibited a total of five clues out of a possible

eight." And as to the One Leg Stand Test, Bicalho "exhibited a

total of three clues out of a possible four." Based on Officer

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

Koike's and Officer Oallesma's observations, there was probable

cause to believe Bicalho committed OVUII. State v. Ontai, 84

Hawaiʻi 56, 63, 929 P.2d 69, 76 (1996) ("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 guilt of the accused.'" (quoting

State v. Chung, 75 Haw. 398, 409-10, 862 P.2d 1063, 1070

(1993)).

After disregarding Sgt. Spiker's observations, the

totality of Officer Koike's and Officer Oallesma's observations

nonetheless showed it was more probable than not that Bicalho

operated his vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant.

Coyle v. Compton, 85 Hawaiʻi 197, 202, 940 P.2d 404, 409

(App. 1997) ("Preponderance of the evidence is defined as 'proof

which leads the jury to find that the existence of the contested

fact is more probable than its nonexistence.'"); State v.

Mitchell, 94 Hawaiʻi 388, 399, 15 P.3d 314, 325 (App. 2000) ("The

testimonies of the police officers painted a classic portrait of

intoxication. [The defendant]'s breath was redolent of alcohol.

His speech was slurred. His eyes were red, bloodshot and

watery. . . . He had difficulty walking. He was swaying and

unsteady on his feet; indeed, he had difficulty standing and

instead leaned against his vehicle.").

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

Thus, the district court was correct in holding that

the Hearings Officer's error (if any) was harmless. Cf.

Oyadomari v. Admin. Dir. of Cts., 123 Hawaiʻi 312, 234 P.3d 694,

No. 29918, 2010 WL 2904672, at *3 (App. July 26, 2010) (mem.

op.) (applying harmless error to hearings officer's denial of a

request to issue a subpoena).

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court's

December 29, 2023 "Decision and Order Affirming Administrative

Revocation and Dismissing Appeal" and Judgment.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, April 16, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Presiding Judge
Earle A. Partington,
for Petitioner-Appellant. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Associate Judge
Randall S. Nishiyama,
Kodai S. Okano, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Alyssa-Marie Yukiko Kau, Associate Judge
Deputy Attorneys General,
for Respondent-Appellee.