FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT (CASE NO.
A. Sereno for Defendant-Appellant.
Richard K. Minatoya Deputy Prosecuting Attorney County of
Maui for Plaintiff-Appellee.
PRESIDING J., FUJISE AND REIFURTH, JJ.
Bernard Niceloti-Velazquez (Velazquez} appeals from the
"Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law" (FOFs),
entered on August 29, 2014 and the "Amended Judgment and
Notice of Entry of Amended Judgment, " entered on March
6, 2015 in the District Court of the Second
Circuit(district court). Velazquez was convicted
of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant
in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §
291E-61(a)(1), (4) (Supp. 2015).
appeal, Velazquez argues that the district court erred in
denying his motion to suppress evidence of his blood alcohol
content, which was obtained through a warrantless blood draw
pursuant to HRS § 291E-21 (2007 Repl.).
§ 291E-21 is the mandatory testing provision contained
within Hawaii's implied consent statute. The implied
consent statute governs the administration of breath, blood,
and urine tests of vehicle operators suspected of driving
under the influence of drugs or alcohol. See HRS
§ 291E-11 et seq. HRS § 291E-21 provides, in
§291E-21 Applicable scope of part; mandatory testing in
the event of a collision resulting in injury or death.
(c) In the event of a collision resulting in injury or death
and if a law enforcement officer has probable cause to
believe that a person involved in the collision has committed
a violation of section . . . 291E-61 . . . the law
enforcement officer shall request that a sample of blood or
urine be recovered from the vehicle operator or any other
person suspected of committing a violation of section . . .
Hawai'i Supreme Court in State v. Entrekin, 98
Hawai'i 221, 47 P.3d 336 (2002) articulated the following
standard for applying Hawaii's mandatory testing
[A]nonconsensual, warrantless blood extraction does not
violate the fourth amendment to the United States
Constitution, whether the person has been arrested or not, so
long as (1) the police have probable cause to believe that
the person is [driving under the influence] and that the
blood sample will evidence that offense, (2) exigent
circumstances are present, and (3) the sample is
obtained in a reasonable manner.
Id. at 232, 47 P.3d at 347 (emphasis added)
(interpreting HRS § 286-163 (repealed Jan. 1, 2002), the
predecessor of ...