Start with Haw. Rev. Stat. § 291E-11. In Hawaii, A first refusal generally results in a one-year administrative license revocation; longer revocations apply with prior OVUII history, subject to an ADLRO administrative hearing if requested. Refusal can be a separate petty misdemeanor in some circumstances and affects sentencing. Birchfield permits criminal penalties for breath refusal; blood draws for criminal punishment generally require a warrant. That is the question this guide answers for refusing a breathalyzer. Hawaii drivers consent to breath, blood, or urine testing when arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence under chapter 291E. Officers must inform the person of the administrative consequences of refusal.
Implied consent in Hawaii
Hawaii drivers consent to breath, blood, or urine testing when arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence under chapter 291E. Officers must inform the person of the administrative consequences of refusal.
Implied consent is not the same as a Miranda warning. Officers typically must advise of the consequences of refusal before requesting a chemical test. Failure to give a required advisory can affect whether the administrative suspension sticks — a frequent issue in Hawaii appellate opinions.
License suspension and administrative hearings
A first refusal generally results in a one-year administrative license revocation; longer revocations apply with prior OVUII history, subject to an ADLRO administrative hearing if requested.
The DMV / administrative track often runs separately from the criminal DUI case. Missing the short window to request an administrative hearing can lock in a suspension even if the criminal charge is later reduced or dismissed. Always calendar the administrative deadline the same day as the arrest.
How the Hawaii rule applies
Apply the Hawaii authorities in order. The facts are simplified so the statute and the standard are visible.
A driver is arrested for DUI in Hawaii and refuses the evidentiary chemical test after the implied-consent advisory.
- Identify the administrative consequence under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 291E-11: A first refusal generally results in a one-year administrative license revocation; longer revocations apply with prior OVUII history, subject to an ADLRO administrative hearing if requested.
- Separate that track from the criminal case: Refusal can be a separate petty misdemeanor in some circumstances and affects sentencing. Birchfield permits criminal penalties for breath refusal; blood draws for criminal punishment generally require a warrant.
- Ask whether the refusal can be argued to the jury: Refusal evidence is admissible in the OVUII prosecution.
- If the request is for blood rather than breath, apply the warrant rule: Breath testing is standard; blood testing may be compelled by warrant or under statutory exceptions in serious collision cases.
In Hawaii the refusal question is answered first by Haw. Rev. Stat. § 291E-11, then by the administrative deadline and the criminal case.
Criminal consequences of refusal
Refusal can be a separate petty misdemeanor in some circumstances and affects sentencing. Birchfield permits criminal penalties for breath refusal; blood draws for criminal punishment generally require a warrant.
Under Birchfield v. North Dakota, the Fourth Amendment allows criminal penalties for refusing a warrantless breath test incident to a lawful DUI arrest, but generally requires a warrant (or a recognized exception) before the State may impose criminal penalties for refusing a blood draw. Missouri v. McNeely rejected a per-se exigency based solely on natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood. Hawaii statutes and case law implement those federal baselines with local detail.
Can refusal be used as evidence?
Refusal evidence is admissible in the OVUII prosecution.
Prosecutors often argue consciousness of guilt; defense counsel emphasize confusion, inadequate advisories, or medical inability to provide a sample. The precise jury instruction language is state-specific — search Hawaii opinions for “refusal” and “implied consent.”
Breath tests versus blood tests
Breath testing is standard; blood testing may be compelled by warrant or under statutory exceptions in serious collision cases.
Practical tip: a driver who refuses breath may still face a warrant-backed blood draw. Refusal does not create a permanent shield against chemical evidence; it mainly adds administrative (and sometimes criminal) consequences on top of the underlying DUI case.
Practical tips
- Ask whether the stop and arrest were lawful — implied consent usually requires a lawful DUI arrest first.
- Diary the administrative hearing deadline immediately.
- Do not confuse portable roadside breath screens with the evidentiary breathalyzer at the station; statutes often treat them differently.
- Research Hawaii opinions on implied consent, refusal, and license revocation in LawDiver before a contested DMV hearing.
Case law: implied consent and refusal in Hawaii
STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee v. WILLIAM SEVERINO, Defendant-Appellant
STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee v. WILLIAM SEVERINO, Defendant-Appellant, 56 Haw. 378 (1975)
…nda rights and of the requirements and the sanctions of the implied consent law. He thereafter refused to answer any questions or to take any test to determine the amount of alcohol present in his body, until he had been afforded an opportunity to talk to his lawyer. At no time was he explicitly informed that the Miranda rights had no application to the implied consent proceedi…
On implied consent / breathalyzer refusal, STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee v. WILLIAM SEVERINO, Defendant-Appellant speaks to the Hawaii dispute in this passage: "He thereafter refused to answer any questions or to take any test to determine the amount of alcohol present in his body, until he had been afforded an opportunity to talk to his lawyer." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES MOORE, Defendant-Appellant
STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES MOORE, Defendant-Appellant, 62 Haw. 301 (1980)
…was advised of the requirements and sanctions of the Hawaii Implied Consent Law, HRS §§ 286-151 and 286-155. Defendant was then asked to sign the Honolulu Police Department’s form entitled “Advising Persons of the Requirements of the Implied Consent Law” (hereinafter “Implied Consent Form”). At trial, Officer Mercado testified that, upon being informed of the Hawaii Implied Con…
STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES MOORE, Defendant-Appellant is worth reading on Hawaii implied consent / breathalyzer refusal because the court put the point in its own words: "Hawaii Implied Consent Law, HRS §§ 286-151 and 286-155. Defendant was then asked to sign the Honolulu Police Department’s form entitled “Advising Persons of the Requirements of the Implied Consent Law” (hereinafter “Implied Consent Form”)." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GLENN HISAO TANIGUCHI, Defendant-Appellee
…HPD Form 245, “Advising Persons Of The Requirements Of The Implied Consent Law.” Defendant testified that he read the form to himself and understood its contents. After reading the form once, he asked the police officer if he could consult with an attorney. The officer responded by telling Defendant, “first fill out the document.” Defendant read *237 the form a second time. Ag…
Hawaii opinions such as STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GLENN HISAO TANIGUCHI, Defendant-Appellee are cited where implied consent / breathalyzer refusal is disputed. The court stated: "HPD Form 245, “Advising Persons Of The Requirements Of The Implied Consent Law.” Defendant testified that he read the form to himself and understood its contents. After reading the form once, he asked the police officer if he could consult with an attorney." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
STATE of Hawai'i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. YONG SHIK WON, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellan — Nakayama, J
…mit to breath or blood alcohol testing pursuant to Hawaii’s implied consent statutes. In this case, Won’s cooperation with lawful implied consent procedures constituted real and voluntary consent that excused the officers from obtaining a warrant. Accordingly, I would affirm Won’s conviction and sentence. DISCUSSION I. This court bears a heavy burden when it is tasked with decl…
Hawaii opinions such as STATE of Hawai'i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. YONG SHIK WON, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellan — Nakayama, J are cited where implied consent / breathalyzer refusal is disputed. The court stated: "Hawaii’s implied consent statutes. In this case, Won’s cooperation with lawful implied consent procedures constituted real and voluntary consent that excused the officers from obtaining a warrant. Accordingly, I would affirm Won’s conviction and sentence. DISCUSSION I." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
MICHAEL C. ROSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Defendant-Appellant; And MICHAEL C. ROSSELL
…OGATA, J. This appeal raises questions concerning Hawaii’s “implied consent” statute, HRS Chapter 286, Part YII (1976 Repl.). On November 28, 1975, judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff-appellee Michael C. Rossell (hereinafter appellee) for damages stemming from, inter alia, the failure of defendants-appellants (hereinafter appellants) to comply with a provision of the imp…
On implied consent / breathalyzer refusal, MICHAEL C. ROSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Defendant-Appellant; And MICHAEL C. ROSSELL speaks to the Hawaii dispute in this passage: "OGATA, J. This appeal raises questions concerning Hawaii’s “implied consent” statute, HRS Chapter 286, Part YII (1976 Repl.). On November 28, 1975, judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff-appellee Michael C." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
STATE of Hawai'i v. YONG SHIK WON
STATE of Hawai'i v. YONG SHIK WON, 134 Haw. 59 (2014)
…him for OVUII. At the police station, an officer read the “implied consent” form to Won, and Won agreed to take a breath test, which revealed an alcohol concentration above the legal limit. The police did not provide Won with Miranda warnings2 before reading the implied consent form and obtaining his agreement to take the breath test. Prior to trial, Won moved to suppress the…
Practitioners open STATE of Hawai'i v. YONG SHIK WON when Hawaii implied consent / breathalyzer refusal turns on the distinction in this sentence: "OVUII. At the police station, an officer read the “implied consent” form to Won, and Won agreed to take a breath test, which revealed an alcohol concentration above the legal limit." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Key takeaways
- Primary authority: Haw. Rev. Stat. § 291E-11.
- Administrative hit: A first refusal generally results in a one-year administrative license revocation; longer revocations apply with prior OVUII history, subject to an ADLRO administrative hearing if requested.
- Criminal exposure: Refusal can be a separate petty misdemeanor in some circumstances and affects sentencing.
- Evidence: Refusal evidence is admissible in the OVUII prosecution.
- Blood vs. breath: federal Supreme Court doctrine in Birchfield and McNeely still frames warrant rules.
Frequently asked questions
What happens if I refuse a breathalyzer in Hawaii?
A first refusal generally results in a one-year administrative license revocation; longer revocations apply with prior OVUII history, subject to an ADLRO administrative hearing if requested. Refusal can be a separate petty misdemeanor in some circumstances and affects sentencing.
Is refusal a separate crime in Hawaii?
Refusal can be a separate petty misdemeanor in some circumstances and affects sentencing. Birchfield permits criminal penalties for breath refusal; blood draws for criminal punishment generally require a warrant.
Will the prosecutor tell the jury I refused?
Refusal evidence is admissible in the OVUII prosecution.
Do I need a warrant for a blood draw?
Breath testing is standard; blood testing may be compelled by warrant or under statutory exceptions in serious collision cases. See also Birchfield and McNeely linked above.