Case Notes

• Publication year: 2021

CASE NOTES

Supreme Court

Civil Procedure

Wolcott v. Administrative Director of the Courts, No. SCWC-15-0000859, December 21, 2020, (Nakayama, J.). Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant Justin T Wolcott ("Wolcott") appeals from the judgment and order of the district court affirming the administrative revocation of his driver's license by a hearing officer of the Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office (the "ADLRO") for a period of ten years. The ADLRO sustained the automatic revocation of Wol-cott's driver's license for ten years based on its determination that Wolcott was subject to a mandatory ten-year revocation period for the offense of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant ("OVUII") because Wolcott had three or more prior alcohol enforcement contacts. In its written decision, the ADLRO found that Wolcott had a total of four prior alcohol enforcement contacts, based on a driving history abstract obtained by the ADLRO from the Problem Driver Pointer System ("PDPS Abstract"). The ADLRO provided Wolcott with a copy of the PDPS Abstract in the form of a ten-page computer print-out prior to his hearing. The PDPS Abstract indicated that Wolcott had a total of four prior alcohol enforcement contacts: two in Hawaii, which Wolcott conceded, and two in Oregon, which Wolcott claimed to have no knowledge of. Wolcott appealed to the ICA and argued that (1) the district court erred in holding that the ADLRO was not required to lay foundation to admit the PDPS Abstract into evidence; and (2) the ADLRO failed to provide notice as what the PDPS Abstract actually was or where it originated until after the hearing. The ICA affirmed. In his application for writ of certiorari, Wolcott maintains that the ADLRO was required to lay foundation to admit the PDPS Abstract and that he was denied due process because the PDPS Abstract that he received in discovery was untitled, failed to identify its source, and used codes without any explanation of their meaning. Wolcott argues that the PDPS Abstract failed to provide him with adequate notice of the Oregon alcohol enforcement contacts and a meaningful opportunity to respond at the hearing. Due process requires that Wolcott have a "meaningful opportunity" to challenge the revocation of his driver's license, which is a constitutionally protected property interest. The procedures that the ADLRO implemented in this case, namely, sending Wolcott a cryptic and unclear computer printout, failed to provide him with adequate notice of the two Oregon alcohol enforcement contacts and denied him a meaningful opportunity to respond. Thus, the ADLRO erroneously considered the two Oregon alcohol enforcement contacts in determining the length of his revocation period because Wolcott was not able to challenge those convictions at the revocation hearing. The Hawaii Supreme Court held that the procedures used by the ADLRO in this case denied Wolcott due process. Had the ADLRO considered only Wolcott's two prior alcohol enforcement contacts in Hawaii, the mandatory revocation period would have been four years. Accordingly, the Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the ICA's June 25, 2019 judgment on appeal, except that part of the judgment relating to the additional revocation...