Hawaii Supreme Court considers whether refusing sobriety tests is evidence of guilt
The Supreme Court of Hawaii is considering whether refusing a sobriety test can be used as evidence of guilt.(Image from Shutterstock)
The Hawaii Supreme Court is considering whether refusing sobriety tests can be used as evidence that a driver knew they were intoxicated.
The court heard arguments on Thursday the case of Yuki Gleason who said no when a police officer asked her to perform a sobriety test after pulling her over for swerving. She was arrested and taken to the station where police reported she had 0.140 on a breath test, above the legal limit, reports Courthouse News Service.
Under the current standard, established by the state Intermediate Court of Appeals’ 2000 decision in State v. Ferm, a refusal can be used as evidence that a driver knew they were intoxicated, according to Courthouse News.
Gleason’s attorney and the ACLU of Hawaii asked the court to throw that standard out. “Refusal to cooperate with police is not synonymous with guilt,” Emily Hills, ACLU of Hawaii attorney, said. “It should not be treated as such.”
But the state’s deputy solicitor general, Sianha Gualano, argued that because the Hawaii Supreme Court has previously found that sobriety tests do not implicate constitutional protections against unreasonable searches or self-incrimination, a driver has no constitutional right to refuse them., the report said.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
