State v. Cheek-Enriques
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Hawaii?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Hawaii. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Petitioner was found guilty of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant. Petitioner appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the results of a breath alcohol test that he took after he was arrested, arguing that he did not constitutionally consent to the breath test because the implied consent form conveyed a threat of imprisonment and significant punishment for his refusal to submit to the test. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that the result of Petitioner’s breath test was the product of a warrantless search, and therefore, the district court erred in denying Petitioner’s motion to suppress the breath test result. Remanded.
Download PDF
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-13-0005232 21-JAN-2016 08:28 AM SCWC-13-0005232 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ________________________________________________________________ STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BYRON D. CHEEK-ENRIQUES, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-13-0005232; CASE NO. 1DTA-11-05193) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ., with Wilson, J., concurring separately, and Nakayama, J., dissenting separately, with whom Recktenwald, C.J., joins) Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Byron D. Cheek-Enriques seeks review of the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ (ICA) June 3, 2015 Judgment on Appeal, entered pursuant to its April 28, 2015 Summary Disposition Order, which affirmed the District Court of the First Circuit’s (district court) October 16, 2013 Notice of ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/Judgment (district court judgment).1 The district court found Cheek-Enriques guilty of Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OVUII), in violation of Hawai i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291E61(a)(3) (Supp. 2010).2 We accepted Cheek-Enriques’s Application for Writ of Certiorari, and we now vacate the ICA’s Judgment on Appeal and the district court judgment and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. After being arrested for OVUII, Cheek-Enriques was taken to the police station, where he was read an implied consent form.3 Cheek-Enriques elected to take a breath test, 1 The Honorable David Lo presided. 2 HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) (Supp. 2010) provides in relevant part: (a) A person commits the offense of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant if the person operates or assumes actual physical control of a vehicle: . . . (3) With .08 or more grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath. . . . 3 The form read in relevant part: 1. ___ Any person who operates a vehicle upon a public way, street, road, or highway or on or in the waters of the State shall be deemed to have given consent to a test or tests for the purpose of determining alcohol concentration or drug content of the persons [sic] breath, blood or urine as applicable. 2. ___ You are not entitled to an attorney before you submit to any tests [sic] or tests to determine your alcohol and/or drug content. (continued . . .) 2 ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** which resulted in a breath alcohol content reading of 0.155 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. Cheek-Enriques filed a motion to suppress the breath test results based on a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Hawai i Constitution, which the district court denied. The ICA affirmed the district court’s denial of this motion to suppress. On certiorari, Cheek-Enriques contends, inter alia, that he did not constitutionally consent to the breath test because “[t]elling someone that [he or she] must consent to a 4th Amendment search or face 30 days in jail simply is not consent under the 4th Amendment.” In State v. Won, 136 Hawai i 292, 312, 361 P.3d 1195, 1215 (2015), we held that “coercion engendered by the Implied Consent Form runs afoul of the constitutional mandate that waiver of a constitutional right may only be the result of a (. . . continued) 3. ___ You may refuse to submit to a breath or blood test, or both for the purpose of determining alcohol concentration and/or blood or urine test, or both for the purpose of determining drug content, none shall be given [sic], except as provided in section 291E-21. However, if you refuse to submit to a breath, blood, or urine test, you shall be subject to up to thirty days imprisonment and/or fine up to $1,000 or the sanctions of 291E-65, if applicable. In addition, you shall also be subject to the procedures and sanctions under chapter 291E, part III. 3 ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** free and unconstrained choice,” and, thus, a defendant’s decision to submit to testing after being read the implied consent form “is invalid as a waiver of his right not to be searched.” In accordance with State v. Won, the result of Cheek-Enriques’s breath test was the product of a warrantless search, and the ICA erred by concluding that the district court properly denied Cheek-Enriques’s motion to suppress the breath test result. Accordingly, Cheek-Enriques’s OVUII conviction may not be upheld. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the ICA’s June 3, 2015 Judgment on Appeal and the district court judgment are vacated, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this court’s opinion in State v. Won. DATED: Jonathan Burge for petitioner Honolulu, Hawai i, January 21, 2016. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack Brian R. Vincent for respondent /s/ Michael D. Wilson 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
