NOT FOR
PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI`I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
NO. 26524
IN
THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
Petitioner-Appellant Steven T. Smith (Smith) appeals from the March 29, 2004, Judgment on Appeal of the District Court of the First Circuit (the district court), (1) which affirmed the one-year revocation of Smith's driver's license by Respondent-Appellee Administrative Director of the Courts.
On appeal, Smith argues that the district court erred in affirming the administrative revocation of his license because: (1) the completion and transmission of forms associated with his arrest by a Navy police officer to the Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office (ADLRO) violated the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA); (2) (2) ADLRO security measures violated Smith's right to a public hearing, and the ADLRO'S refusal to hold a hearing on the validity of its security measures violated the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision in Freitas v. Admin. Dir. of the Courts, 104 Hawai`i 483, 92 P.3d 993 (2004); (3) the hearing procedures used by the hearing officer in Smith's administrative hearing were arbitrary and violated Smith's constitutional rights to due process of law and the statutory mandate contained in Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 291E, Part III (Supp. 2003), because (a) the ADLRO lacks "uniform common procedure" for conducting administrative hearings, (b) the appropriate procedural posture in ADLRO administrative hearings is a "review" of the administrative review decision rather than a de novo hearing, (c) the entire ADLRO file cannot come into evidence, and (d) a valid chemical test or refusal is a prerequisite for ADLRO jurisdiction; and (4) the notice of administrative revocation did not adequately distinguish between administrative revocation and criminal suspension.After a careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, we hold that each of Smith's arguments in the instant appeal have been previously addressed by the Hawai`i Supreme Court and found to be without merit. (3) Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment on Appeal filed on March 29, 2004, in the District Court of the First Circuit is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, December 4, 2006.
On the briefs:
1. The Honorable Clarence A. Pacarro presided.
2. The Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is codified at 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 1385 and provides that:
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Petitioner-Appellant Steven T. Smith (Smith) asserts that the restrictions of the PCA have been extended to the Navy through directives issued by the Department of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy.
3. As to Argument No. 1
in the instant appeal: See
Brune v. Admin. Dir. of the
Courts, 110 Hawai`i 172, 172-73, 130 P.3d 1037, 1037-38 (2006).
As to Argument No. 2 in the instant appeal: See Freitas v. Admin. Dir. of the Courts, 108 Hawai`i 31, 40, 116 P.3d 673, 682 (2005) [hereinafter Freitas II]; see also Dunaway v. Admin. Dir. of the Courts, 108 Hawai`i 78, 82-83, 117 P.3d 109, 113-14 (2005).
As to Argument No. 3(a) in the instant appeal: See Freitas II, 108 Hawai`i at 44-45, 116 P.3d at 686-87.As to Argument No. 3(b) in the instant appeal: See id.; see also Dunaway, 108 Hawai`i at 83, 117 P.3d at 114.
As to Argument No. 3(c) in the instant appeal: See Freitas II, 108 Hawai`i at 45-46, 116 P.3d at 687-88.As to Argument No. 3(d) in the instant appeal: See id. at 46, 116 P.3d at 688.
As to Argument No. 4 in the instant appeal: See Dunaway, 108 Hawai`i at 87, 117 P.3d at 118.