State v. Siu

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
04-AUG-2025
08:12 AM
Dkt. 56 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DARREN SIU, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
HONOLULU DIVISION
(CASE NO. 1DTA-22-00496)

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

Darren Siu appeals from the Notice of Entry of Judgment
and/or Order and Plea/Judgment entered by the District Court of
the First Circuit, Honolulu Division on September 7, 2022,
November 22, 2022, and December 13, 2022.1 We affirm.
At about 11:41 p.m. on April 19, 2022, Joseph Romero
was at his friend's house in Kalihi Valley. He "heard a -- a
big, loud bang." His car had been parked on the street. He went
outside. He saw his car. "Pretty much the whole left side is
all pushed in from the back, and then the car in front of me, I
hit the car in front, so my car was smooshed pretty much."
Romero saw two people in a van. Siu was on the
driver's side. Romero testified, "He tried turning on the car."

1
The Honorable Alvin K. Nishimura presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Siu approached Romero and said, "[D]on't worry, we'll take care
of it."
On April 27, 2022, Siu was charged by complaint with
Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant in
violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291E-61(a)(1). He
pleaded not guilty. He moved to suppress his answer ("Yes") to
Honolulu Police Department (HPD) officer Justin Nakakuni's
question, "You were driving?" The motion was heard on August 31,
2022. The District Court denied the motion.
Trial was held on August 31 and September 6 and 7,
2022. Siu did not testify. He was found guilty as charged.
This appeal followed. Siu states two points of error: (1) the
District Court erred by denying his motion to suppress; and
(2) there was no substantial evidence to support his conviction.
(1) We review a ruling on a motion to suppress de novo
to determine whether the ruling was right or wrong. State v.
Hewitt, 153 Hawai#i 33, 40, 526 P.3d 558, 565 (2023).
A person in police custody may not be interrogated
without first being given Miranda warnings. Hewitt, 153 Hawai#i
at 43, 526 P.3d at 568. The State doesn't dispute that Siu was
not given Miranda warnings before Officer Nakakuni asked if he
was driving. We must determine whether Siu was in custody.
Miranda warnings are required when probable cause to
arrest has developed. Hewitt, 153 Hawai#i at 44, 526 P.3d at 569
(citing State v. Ketchum, 97 Hawai#i 107, 126, 34 P.3d 1006, 1025
(2001)). That is a "bright-line rule." Hewitt, 153 Hawai#i at
36, 526 P.3d at 561. The evidence from the hearing on the motion
to suppress did not show that Officer Nakakuni had probable cause
to arrest Siu.
Even if police don't have probable cause to arrest, a
person is in custody for Miranda purposes if the totality of
circumstances — including "the place and time of the
interrogation, the length of the interrogation, the nature of the
questions asked, the conduct of the police, and all other
relevant circumstances" — objectively show the person "was in

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

custody or otherwise deprived of their freedom of action" in a
significant way. Hewitt, 153 Hawai#i at 45, 526 P.3d at 570
(quoting State v. Patterson, 59 Haw. 357, 361, 581 P.2d 752, 755
(1978)); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966) (defining
"custodial interrogation" as "questioning initiated by law
enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody
or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in a significant
way").
In Ketchum the supreme court summarized:

a person is "in custody" . . . if an objective assessment of
the totality of the circumstances reflects either (1) that
the person has become impliedly accused of committing a
crime because the questions of the police have become
sustained and coercive, such that they are no longer
reasonably designed briefly to confirm or dispel their
reasonable suspicion or (2) that the point of arrest has
arrived because either (a) probable cause to arrest has
developed or (b) the police have subjected the person to an
unlawful "de facto" arrest without probable cause to do so.

97 Hawai#i at 126, 34 P.3d at 1025.
In Hewitt the supreme court held that a person
receiving medical treatment and unable to leave a place of
interrogation is "in custody" if they are not able to terminate
the interrogation and cause the police officer to leave. 153
Hawai#i at 46, 526 P.3d at 571.
Officer Nakakuni confirmed at the hearing on the motion
to suppress that Siu was standing at the scene of the collision
with other people who were not police officers. Officer Nakakuni
asked Siu, "You were driving?"
Siu responded, "Yes."
State's Exhibit 1, a portion of a video from Officer
Nakakuni's body-worn camera, was admitted into evidence. The
video shows Siu standing next to a man in a jacket over a white
shirt. Siu walks away from the other man. Officer Nakakuni asks
him, "you were driving?" Siu responds, "yes."
Siu also testified at the hearing. As soon as the
collision occurred he called his friend and asked to be picked
up. Four of his friends came. He spoke to other HPD officers at

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the scene before speaking to Officer Nakakuni. Siu testified the
officers "wouldn't allow me to leave. They just asked me to
stay." He wasn't handcuffed. He wasn't forced to say anything
to Officer Nakakuni.
Here, the totality of the evidence from the hearing on
Siu's motion to suppress shows Siu was not in custody when he
answered Officer Nakakuni's question. Siu was at the scene of
the collision, shortly after it happened. He had been asked to
remain at the scene but was not physically restrained and was
standing with a friend, not a police officer. He had not been
"deprived of his freedom of action in a significant way."
Officer Nakakuni's single question was neither sustained nor
coercive. Under these circumstances, the District Court was
right to deny the motion to suppress.
(2) We apply a deferential standard when reviewing the
sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction:

[E]vidence adduced in the trial court must be considered in
the strongest light for the prosecution when the appellate
court passes on the legal sufficiency of such evidence to
support a conviction; the same standard applies whether the
case was before a judge or jury. The test on appeal is not
whether guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt, but
whether there was substantial evidence to support the
conclusion of the trier of fact.

State v. Kalaola, 124 Hawai#i 43, 49, 237 P.3d 1109, 1115 (2010).
The elements of Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence
of an Intoxicant are:

(a) A person commits the offense of operating a vehicle
under the influence of an intoxicant if the person operates
or assumes actual physical control of a vehicle:

(1) While under the influence of alcohol in an
amount sufficient to impair the person's normal
mental faculties or ability to care for the
person and guard against casualty[.]

HRS § 291E-61 (2020).
At trial, Romero testified he saw Siu in the driver's
side of the van that had collided with his parked car. Siu
approached him and said, "[D]on't worry, we'll take care of it."

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

At the scene, Officer Nakakuni asked Siu, "you were
driving?"
Siu responded, "yes."
Officer Nakakuni smelled a strong odor of alcohol while
he was about two feet away from Siu, with no one else around.
Siu's eyes were watery. His speech was slurred.
HPD officer Kevin Chun also saw that Siu "had some
glossy [sic] eyes." He was about "2 to 3 feet away" from Siu.
The smell of alcohol was coming from Siu, who was "kinda unsteady
on his feet."
Officer Nakakuni administered the standardized field
sobriety test to Siu. Siu said he understood Officer Nakakuni's
instructions for the horizontal and vertical gaze nystagmus
tests, but he wasn't able to follow directions despite multiple
tries. On the walk-and-turn test, Siu said he understood Officer
Nakakuni's instructions, but "was unable to keep his balance.
His steps were off the line and staggered." On the one-legged
stand, Siu "was not able to keep his balance, he fell off balance
multiple times[.]" Officer Nakakuni "had to terminate the test"
because of his concern about Siu "falling down and injuring
himself."
The trial evidence, considered in the strongest light
for the prosecution, was sufficient to support the conviction for
Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant in
violation of HRS § 291E-61(a)(1).
The Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and
Plea/Judgment entered by the District Court on September 7, 2022,
November 22, 2022, and December 13, 2022, is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 4, 2025.

On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Alen M. K. Kaneshiro, Chief Judge
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Brian Vincent, Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
City and County of Honolulu, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
for Plaintiff-Appellee. Associate Judge

5