Estalilla v. Administrative Director of the Courts

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
27-APR-2026
08:35 AM
Dkt. 42 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

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

FERNANDO ESTALILLA, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS, Respondent-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
HONOLULU DIVISION
(CASE NO. 1DAA-24-00009)

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

Following his arrest for Operating a Vehicle Under the
Influence of an Intoxicant (OVUII) at an intoxication
enforcement roadblock, Petitioner-Appellant Fernando Estalilla
(Estalilla) appeals from an order affirming the one-year
revocation of his driver's license by the Administrative
Driver's License Revocation Office (ADLRO). We affirm.
Estalilla appeals from the "Decision and Order
Affirming Administrative Revocation" (Revocation Order)1 filed on

1 Estalilla does not identify or attach the District Court's
November 6, 2024 "Judgment on Appeal" (Judgment). We construe Estalilla's
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

November 1, 2024 by the District Court of the First Circuit
(District Court).2 Estalilla's petition for judicial review
before the District Court argued that the roadblock violated
Estalilla'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 police provided
insufficient advance notice of the roadblock such that legally
avoiding it was impossible. The District Court's Revocation
Order held that Heapy merely addresses "permissible avoidance"
of roadblocks but "did not create, and the U.S. and Hawaii
Constitutions do not mandate, a legal escape route to avoid a
roadblock." The District Court also distinguished Heapy, noting
that the Heapy defendant, unlike Estalilla, "executed a legal
turn prior to the roadblock."
On appeal, Estalilla raises a single point of error,4
contending that the District Court erred by "rul[ing] that the
police do not have an affirmative duty to provide a legal way to
avoid a police DUI roadblock."
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to

appeal to also 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).
2 The Honorable Tracy S. Fukui presided.
3 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." 113 Hawaiʻi 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 did not in itself constitute reasonable suspicion for police
officers to carry out an investigatory stop. Id. at 285, 151 P.3d at 766.
4 Estalilla's point of error does not contain the required record
references under Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b)(4)(ii) and
(iii).

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

the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve
Estalilla's contentions as follows.
Estalilla argues that because the Heapy defendant was
"afforded a way to avoid the roadblock," the Heapy court "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."
Estalilla's interpretation and application of Heapy is
incorrect. Heapy does not support the proposition that police
officers must affirmatively provide a lawful means for motorists
to avoid a roadblock. See id.; Akiona v. Admin. Dir. of Cts.,
No. 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"); Respicio
v. Admin. Dir. Of Cts., No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2019 WL 2121300, at
*1 (Haw. App. May 15, 2019) (SDO) (finding that Heapy did not
hold that "the police must provide motorists with a legal method
for avoiding a roadblock" and there was "reasonable suspicion"
for defendant's stop because defendant was "observed failing to
use a turn signal and crossing a solid white line when pulling
off the road prior to encountering the roadblock").
Here, unlike Heapy and similar to Respicio, the record
reflects that Estalilla illegally reversed his vehicle in a one-
way lane of traffic, providing reasonable suspicion for police
officers to stop his vehicle. The police officers had no
affirmative duty to provide Estalilla with a legal means of
avoiding the roadblock. See Akiona, 2025 WL 3124682, at *1.
Accordingly, the District Court's ruling that the
police were not required to provide motorists with a legal means
of avoiding the roadblock, and affirming the ADLRO's revocation,
was correct. See McGrail v. Admin. Dir. Of Cts., 130 Hawaiʻi 74,

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

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)).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the District
Court of the First Circuit's November 1, 2024 Revocation Order
and November 6, 2024 Judgment.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, April 27, 2026.
On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Kevin O'Grady,
Chief Judge
for Petitioner-Appellant.
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Alyssa-Marie Y. Kau,
Associate Judge
Deputy Attorney General
for Respondent-Appellee.
/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Associate Judge

4