Bates v. Administrative Director of the Courts

── Bates v. Administrative Director of the Courts ── Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Date: May 08, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 08-MAY-2026 08:02 AM Dkt. 58 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I HEATHER BATES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS, Respondent-Appellee APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION (CASE NO. 1DAA-24-00005) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.) In this secondary appeal, Petitioner-Appellant Heather Bates (Bates) challenges the district court's order affirming the two-year revocation of her driver's license by the Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office (ADLRO). We affirm. Bates appeals from the District Court of the First Circuit's (District Court)1 November 27, 2024 "Decision and Order Sustaining Administrative Revocation" (Revocation Order).2 Bates 1 The Honorable David M. Hayakawa presided. 2 Bates does not identify or attach the District Court's December 2, 2024 "Judgment on Appeal" (Judgment). We construe Bates's appeal to also  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER filed her Petition for Judicial Review of the ADLRO decision (Petition) on April 9, 2024. Bates's Petition before the District Court argued, inter alia, that the roadblock violated Bates'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 Honolulu Police Department (HPD) provided insufficient advance notice of the roadblock such that legally avoiding it was impossible. Bates also argued that the ADLRO "erred when [it] considered [Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs)] as proof of impairment by marijuana" because SFSTs are "irrelevant" to "an analysis of impairment by marijuana" for a "probable cause determination." On appeal, Bates raises two points of error (POEs),4 contending that the District Court erred by (1) "rul[ing] that the police do not have an affirmative duty to provide a legal way to avoid a police DUI roadblock" and (2) finding that "probable cause existed to arrest Bates for any manner of OVUII and that there was a preponderance of evidence to believe that Bates was OVUII by reason of marijuana consumption." Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve the contentions as follows. 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). 3 Heapy is summarized infra. 4 Bates's POEs omit required record references for where the alleged errors were brought to the District Court's attention. See Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4)(iii). 2  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER (1) Bates argues that because the Heapy defendant was "afforded a way to avoid the roadblock[,]" the Heapy court "thus sent the clear message that roadblocks, in order to be constitutional, in Hawaii, must afford a driv