Hawaii

The ICA reversed an excessive speeding conviction because the State failed to prove the manufacturer’s specific training requirements for the LIDAR device, as required under the Assaye/Amiral framework.

The ICA affirmed an excessive speeding conviction, holding that evidence of driving 92 mph in a 60-mph zone was sufficient to prove recklessness under HRS § 291C-105(a)(2), regardless of the defendant’s subjective reason for accelerating.

In a published opinion, the ICA held that district courts exceed their statutory authority when requiring OVUII defendants to appear for substance abuse compliance hearings, extending the Supreme Court’s Fay decision and holding such hearings are impermissibly akin to probation.