Hawaii Supreme Court· 10/28/1999

State v. Wilson

Citations

987 P.2d 268
92 Haw. 45
1999 Haw. LEXIS 360

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that “Hawaii’s implied consent scheme mandates accurate warnings to enable a driver to knowingly and intelligently consent to or refuse a chemical alcohol test”
recognizing both an implied right to refuse and penalties for refusing
deciding, without discussion, that \[s]uch exclusion is appropriate here\
affirming the trial court’s suppression of a driver’s blood alcohol content (BAC) result where an arresting officer, in violation of HRS chapter 286’s consent requirement, failed to inform the driver of the statutory penalties
suppressing test results because the consequences of consenting to or refusing to take the chemical alcohol test was not properly conveyed to the motorist but allowing that “there is nothing to prevent the prosecution from relying on other relevant evidence of intoxication”
\the administrative revocation statute and its criminal DUI counterpart are part and parcel of the same statutory scheme to prevent and address drunk driving\ (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Klein, Levinson, Moon, Nakayama, Ramil

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

54 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

56 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.