Rathbun v. ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS

LAW LIBRA;-“;;Y

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. 296l9
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

oF THE STATE oF HAWAI‘I

£;Y.H"H,;§

JAMES D. RATHBUN, Petitioner-Appellant
V'.

ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS,

STATE OF HAWAfI, Respondent-Appellee

§S=L HV 'IZ »WHIHBZ

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

HONOLULU DIVISION
08-04532)

(JR. NO. 1DAA-08-O0l3; Original Case No.

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER’
(By: Nakamura, Chief Judge, Foley, and Fujise, JJ.)

Petitioner-Appellant James D. Rathbun (Rathbun) appeals

from the Judgment on Appeal (Judgment) entered on January 5,

2009, by the District Court of the First Circuit (district
court).F The district court affirmed the administrative

revocation of Rathbun's driver's license by Respondent-Appellee
Administrative Director of the Courts, State of HawaiU_

(Director), acting through a hearing officer of the
Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office (ADLRO).
On appeal, Rathbun argues that: 1) the district court

erred in determining that the findings of fact by the ADLRO

hearing officer were legally sufficient to support his
conclusions that Rathbun a) refused to submit to testing and b)
did so after having been informed of the applicable sanctions for

refusing to be tested; and 2) the district court erred in
affirming the revocation of Rathbun's driving privileges.
Rathbun also asserts that he received inaccurate and misleading

information prior to being asked if he would submit to testing.

y The Honorable William A. Cardwell presided.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

We affirm the district court. The hearing officer,
acting on behalf of the Director, sustained the administrative
review decision to revoke Rathbun's license on the alternative
grounds that Rathbun refused to submit to testing and that he
operated his vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant.
The determination that Rathbun operated his vehicle while under
the influence of an intoxicant provided an independent basis to
revoke his license. We hold that the hearing officer's 1
determination that Rathbun was driving his vehicle while under
the influence of an intoxicant was supported by sufficient
evidence in the record and adequate findings made by the hearing
officer, This holding renders it unnecessary for us to address
the issues relating to Rathbun's alleged refusal to submit to
testing. §g§ Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291E-38(e)(3)
(2007),» castro v. Admin. Dir. of the courts, 97 Hawai‘i 463, 470-
7l, 40 P.3d 865, 872-73 (2002); Spock v. Admin. Dir. of the
COurtS, 96 Hawai‘i 190, 193-194, 29 P.3d 380, 383-384 (200l).

The evidence presented and the factual findings made by
the hearing officer support the hearing officer's conclusion
that, by a preponderance of the evidence, Rathbun drove his
vehicle while under the influence of an intoXicant. The factual
findings supporting the hearing officer's conclusion included:

l. A witness saw Rathbun's vehicle drift across the

yellow median lane and observed that Rathbun's
vehicle did not appear to attempt to avoid the
collision with the vehicle traveling in the
opposite direction.

2. Rathbun indicated that he did not know how the

accident occurred.

3. Officer Davidson "noted a strong odor of alcohol

on [Rathbun's] breath and that his eyes appeared
to be red and glassy."

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

4. Officer Padilla also noted a strong odor
resembling alcohol emitting from Rathbun's breath
and that Rathbun's eyes were red and glassy.

5. "During the [Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus] test, it
was noted that [Rathbun's] eyes lacked smooth
pursuit (of the stimulus) and demonstrated
distinct nystagmus."

6. Rathbun was uncooperative after agreeing to
participate in the standardized field sobriety
test.

Rathbun did not challenge any of these factual findings on appeal
and thus we are bound by them. See Okada Truckinq Co. v. Bd. of
water Sugply_', 97 Hawai‘i 450, 458, 40 P.3d 73, 81 (2002) .

The circumstances of an accident are relevant to a
determination of whether or not a driver was operating a vehicle
while under the influence of an intoxicant. §§§ State v.
Mitchell, 94 Hawai‘i 338, 400, 15 P.3d 314, 326 (App. 2000).
Evidence that Rathbun's vehicle was seen drifting into another
lane, that he collided with an oncoming vehicle, that he was at
fault in the collision, and that he could not remember how the
accident had occurred supports the conclusion that Rathbun was
driving his vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant. The
observations of the police officers who were involved in the
investigation provide further support for this conclusion. The
strong odor of alcohol emanating from Rathbun, his red and glassy
eyes, and his erratic behavior before and after his arrest are
consistent with his being under the influence of an intoxicant.

The evidence in the record supports the hearing
officer's findings and his determination that Rathbun operated
his vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant.
Rathbun's operation of his vehicle while under the influence of
an intoxicant provides a sufficient basis, independent of whether
Rathbun refused to submit to testing, to justify the

administrative revocation of Rathbun's license and for this court

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

to affirm the district court. See HRS § 291E-38(e)(3); HRS
§ 29lE-4O (2007); CaStrO, 97 Hawai‘i at 4'70-71, 40 P.3d at 872-

73.
The January 5, 2009, Judgment of the district court is

affirmed.
DATED= Honolulu, Hawai‘i, May 24, 2010.

On the briefs:

Timothy I. MacMaster £4§

for Petitioner-Appellant ‘ Chief Judge

DorothY Sellers CLé£%NL7%Z;p'!::;

Solicitor General

Rebecca A. Copeland Associate Judge
Deputy Solicitor General

Department of the Attorney General gi v
for Respondent-Appellee

Associate Jud