Hawaii Supreme Court to Rule on Use of Sobriety Test Refusals in DUI Cases
Hawaii Supreme Court will decide if refusing sobriety tests can imply DUI guilt.
Why it matters: This ruling will clarify evidence standards in DUI prosecutions, affecting how legal counsel advises clients on compliance and defense. It may also set precedent influencing similar cases in other states, impacting litigation strategy nationwide.
- Hawaii Supreme Court will hear the case on June 5, 2026.
- The case challenges using refusal of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST) as evidence of intoxication.
- SFST includes one-leg stand, walk and turn, and horizontal gaze nystagmus tests.
- Defense and ACLU argue refusals should not imply guilt due to constitutional rights protections.
The Hawaii Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on June 5, 2026, regarding whether refusal to perform voluntary roadside sobriety tests can be used as evidence of intoxication in DUI cases. This challenge targets a lower court ruling that allows a driver's refusal of the Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) to be considered consciousness of guilt in license revocation hearings and potentially in criminal trials.
The SFST battery consists of three physical evaluations: the one-leg stand, the walk and turn, and the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. Presently, courts and hearing officers may interpret a refusal to undertake these tests as indicative of guilt.
Defense attorney Kevin O'Grady criticized this practice, stating, "Right now, the court is allowed and hearings officers are allowed to take a person’s ‘no’ to perform a voluntary test and use it as a presumption that the person is guilty." Emily Hills from the ACLU of Hawaii emphasized constitutional protections, noting, "You have a right to say, ‘No, I don’t want to help you prosecute me.’"
Victor Bakke, with experience as both a defense attorney and former deputy city prosecutor, highlighted the challenging position this creates for drivers, saying, "They’re painting people into a no-win situation." The Court's ruling will determine whether test refusals qualify as admissible evidence, which will directly impact strategies in DUI prosecutions.
The case's implication extends beyond Hawaii, as other jurisdictions reviewing their evidentiary standards on sobriety test refusals may look to this decision as guidance. This could influence defense and prosecution approaches across multiple states.
For further context, the Hawaii News Now report and Courthouse News analysis offer additional details.
By the numbers:
- June 5, 2026 — Date Hawaii Supreme Court will hear the case.
- 3 — Number of tests in the Standardized Field Sobriety Test battery.
- 2 — Key advocacy groups opposing use of refusals as guilt evidence (defense attorneys, ACLU).
Yes, but: Some courts maintain that refusal provides probative value, citing public safety concerns and the voluntary nature of the tests, which complicates a simple constitutional rejection.