Opinion
24379
July 9, 2002. Amended July 18, 2002.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (Original Case No. 01-0065)
Earle A. Partington, for the petitioner-appellant, Brandon Jay Silva.
Girard D. Lau (Deputy Attorney General), for the respondent-appellee, Administrative Director of the Courts
MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, RAMIL, JJ., and ACOBA, J., CONCURRING SEPARATELY
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
The petitioner-appellant Brandon Jay Silva appeals from the judgment of the district court of the first circuit, the Honorable I. Norman Lewis presiding, filed on May 29, 2001, affirming the administrative revocation of his driver's license. On appeal, Silva argues that the district court erred in: (1) holding that he was not denied his state and federal constitutional rights to a public hearing on the basis that attendees at administrative driver's license revocation office (ADLRO) hearing are required to sign in with identification; and (2) holding that he had not been denied his state and federal constitutional rights to due process of law on the basis that Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 286, Part XIV (1993 and Supp. 2000) does not provide for a specific procedure at an ADLRO hearing.
Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we affirm the judgment of the district court. First, assuming, arguendo, that Silva has standing to assert the public's right to attend his hearing and that an ADLRO hearing is a "public" hearing, a sign-in requirement does not infringe the public's right of access and is a reasonable security measure. Second, Silva's ADLRO hearing afforded him due process. See Desmond v. Administrative Director of the Courts, 91 Hawai`i 212, 216, 982 P.2d 346, 350-55 (App. 1998), rev'd on other grounds, 90 Haw. 301, 978 P.2d 739 (1999). Therefore,
Oral argument in this case was held on July 3, 2002.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment from which the appeal is taken is affirmed.
I concur in the result, on the representation by the attorney general in oral argument that the ADLRO proceedings are open to the public and in the absence of a showing in this case that the sign-in procedure was unreasonable under the circumstances. However, I agree with Appellant that the Administrative Director of the Courts should establish a common, uniform procedure to be followed in driver revocation proceedings and that notice of such a procedure should be disseminated to the public. Such a request should be brought to his attention by counsel, in the absence of any evidence that the Director will not do so.