*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

NO. 24019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.

AʻO RODENHURST, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(HPD. TRAFFIC NOS. 4867815MO; 4867816MO; 4867817MO)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)

         Defendant-appellant Aʻo Rodenhurst (Rodenhurst) appeals from the October 9, 2003 judgment of the district court of the first circuit, the Honorable Leslie Hayashi presiding, convicting her of and sentencing her for: (1) no no-fault insurance, in violation of Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 431:10C-104 (Supp. 2003), (1) (2) driving without a license, in violation of HRS § 286-102 (1993 & Supp. 2003), (2) and (3) speeding, in violation of HRS § 291C-102 (1993 & Supp. 2003). (3) On appeal, Rodenhurst argues that she was not subject to HRS §§ 431:10C-104, 286-102, and 291C-102, and the district court’s application of such statutes infringed upon her right to travel and violated her right to due process under the law.

         Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs submitted and having given due consideration to the issues raised and arguments advanced, we initially hold that the merits of the issues raised by Rodenhurst will be addressed, notwithstanding her failure to comply with the requirements of Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b), inasmuch as this court favors a policy of affording pro se litigants the opportunity to have their cases heard on the merits, where possible. See HRAP Rule 28(b); Housing Fin. and Dev. Corp. v. Ferguson, 91 Hawaiʻi 81, 979 P.2d 1107 (1999). We further hold that: (1) HRS §§ 431:10C-104, 286-102, and 291C-102, on their face, applied to Rodenhurst and did not infringe upon her right to travel, inasmuch as the State, through its police power, was authorized to regulate the operation of motor vehicles for the safety and order of the general public by requiring that all persons who operate motor vehicles on state highways possess a valid driver’s license, no-fault insurance, and refrain from speeding, see State v. French, 77 Hawaiʻi 222, 883 P.2d 644 (App. 1994); and (2) Rodenhurst’s due process rights were not violated, inasmuch as HRS §§ 431:10C-104, 286-102, and 291C-102 did not infringe upon Rodenhurst’s right to travel, and, therefore, she was not entitled to notice or an opportunity to be heard prior to the statutes’ application, see State v. Adam, 97 Hawaiʻi 475, 40 P.3d 877 (2002). Therefore,

         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the district court’s October 9, 2003 judgment, from which the appeal is taken, is affirmed.

         DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, April 30, 2004.

On the briefs:

  Aʻo Rodenhurst,

  defendant-appellant pro se

  Alexa D.M. Fujise,

  Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,

  for the plaintiff-appellee

  State of Hawaiʻi