Hawaii’s Supreme Court is set for a high-stakes debate on Thursday that could change how drunk driving cases are handled across the islands. At issue: whether a driver’s refusal to take a voluntary roadside sobriety test can be used as evidence of guilt.
The appeal stems from the administrative revocation of a Honolulu driver’s license after she declined a Standardized Field Sobriety Test. The ACLU of Hawaiʻi later moved to join the case. However the justices rule, the decision is expected to ripple through license revocation hearings and some DUI prosecutions statewide.
What the court will decide
The case, Yuki Gleason v. Administrative Director of the Courts (No. SCWC-23-0000049), asks whether a factfinder may infer a "consciousness of guilt" from a driver’s decision to refuse parts of the Standardized Field Sobriety Test. The Hawaiʻi State Judiciary’s oral arguments schedule shows the court has set the matter for argument on Thursday and notes that the ACLU of Hawaiʻi was granted leave to participate in oral argument, according to the Hawaiʻi State Judiciary.
The Intermediate Court of Appeals previously affirmed a one year administrative license revocation in Gleason’s case. That decision is summarized at FindLaw.
Why lawyers say it matters
Appellant attorneys, including Kevin O'Grady, along with ACLU of Hawaiʻi lawyers, argue that treating a refusal as evidence effectively punishes people for exercising constitutional rights and can sweep up innocent explanations such as fear, fatigue, language barriers, or medical issues.
"You have a right to say, 'No, I don't want to help you prosecute me,'" ACLU attorney Emily Hills told reporters, according to Hawaii News Now.
Defense attorneys describe the current approach as a no win situation: take the test and risk failing, or refuse and face an adverse inference. Body camera footage obtained by reporters shows officers ordering drivers who refuse out of their cars and arresting them, the outlet reports.
The tests and the science
Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, or SFSTs, are the three roadside evaluations police commonly use to check for impairment: the horizontal gaze nystagmus (the "eye" test), the walk and turn, and the one leg stand.
NHTSA training materials detail these three components and spell out how officers are supposed to administer them in a standardized way that courts often rely on to gauge reliability. Experts, however, note that medical conditions and real world roadside factors can affect how someone performs, according to NHTSA.
Legal background
Hawaiʻi courts have been wrestling for years with whether refusing a test is more like testimony, which triggers constitutional protections, or simply conduct that can support an inference of guilt.
Some rulings have allowed factfinders to consider refusals as evidence of "consciousness of guilt." Others have emphasized safeguards against compelled self incrimination and limits on custodial questioning. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed Gleason’s revocation in a July 30, 2025 opinion, and earlier decisions such as State v. Ferm and the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court’s treatment of SFST issues in State v. Skapinok highlight the tension in the case law, as outlined at Justia.
What’s next
Oral argument is scheduled for Thursday in the Supreme Court’s Aliʻiōlani Hale courtroom, and the Judiciary plans to livestream the hearing on its YouTube channel, according to the court’s public schedule.
After arguments conclude, the justices could take weeks or months to issue a decision on whether refusals can be used in Administrative Driver’s License Revocation Office hearings and in some criminal OVUII prosecutions. Attorneys on both sides say they expect the ruling to prompt revisions to police guidance and to the advice defense lawyers give clients during traffic stops.
Legal implications
If the court ultimately rules that refusals cannot be treated as evidence of "consciousness of guilt," prosecutors and the ADLRO may need to rethink how they prove license revocations and how they present evidence in DUI cases.
If the court allows the inference to stand, defense lawyers warn that drivers who decline SFSTs will continue to walk into administrative hearings facing built in adverse inferences. Either way, police training materials and defense bar advice are likely to evolve in response, as civil liberties groups and practitioners have already warned, according to reporting by Hawaii News Now.
