Estalilla v. Administrative Director of the Courts

── Estalilla v. Administrative Director of the Courts ── Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 27-APR-2026 08:35 AM Dkt. 42 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I FERNANDO ESTALILLA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS, Respondent-Appellee APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION (CASE NO. 1DAA-24-00009) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Leonard and Guidry, JJ.) Following his arrest for Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OVUII) at an intoxication enforcement roadblock, Petitioner-Appellant Fernando Estalilla (Estalilla) appeals from an order affirming the one-year revocation of his driver's license by the Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office (ADLRO). We affirm. Estalilla appeals from the "Decision and Order Affirming Administrative Revocation" (Revocation Order)1 filed on 1 Estalilla does not identify or attach the District Court's November 6, 2024 "Judgment on Appeal" (Judgment). We construe Estalilla's  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER November 1, 2024 by the District Court of the First Circuit (District Court).2 Estalilla's petition for judicial review before the District Court argued that the roadblock violated Estalilla's constitutional privacy rights under State v. Heapy, 113 Hawaiʻi 283, 151 P.3d 764 (2007)3 by failing to provide a legal means to avoid the roadblock, and that the police provided insufficient advance notice of the roadblock such that legally avoiding it was impossible. The District Court's Revocation Order held that Heapy merely addresses "permissible avoidance" of roadblocks but "did not create, and the U.S. and Hawaii Constitutions do not mandate, a legal escape route to avoid a roadblock." The District Court also distinguished Heapy, noting that the Heapy defendant, unlike Estalilla, "executed a legal turn prior to the roadblock." On appeal, Estalilla raises a single point of error,4 contending that the District Court erred by "rul[ing] that the police do not have an affirmative duty to provide a legal way to avoid a police DUI roadblock." Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to appeal to also appeal from the Judgment. See State v. Graybeard, 93 Hawaiʻi 513, 516, 6 P.3d 385, 388 (App. 2000) (construing appellant's notice of appeal to appeal from judgment not attached to the notice of appeal). 2 The Honorable Tracy S. Fukui presided. 3 In Heapy, a defendant driver "made a legal right turn" onto a road; "the turn was not made erratically, and [the driver's] headlights were on." 113 Hawaiʻi at 292, 151 P.3d at 773. A police officer followed the driver but "did not observe Defendant driving suspiciously or in an erratic manner" before the police officer effected an investigatory stop. Id. The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court held that the driver's legal attempt to avoid a roadblock did not in itself constitute reasonable suspicion for police officers to carry out an investigatory stop. Id. at 285, 151 P.3d at 766. 4 Estalilla's point of error does not contain the required record references under Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b)(4)(ii) and (iii).