OHA trustee charged with DUI in Honolulu
By Jim Dooley
Advertiser Staff Writer
In a case that began with a late-evening car accident in May, Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustee John Waihe'e IV yesterday was charged with drunken driving.
A penal summons directing Waihe'e to answer the charge in court was issued yesterday. He also was cited for operating a vehicle without proof of insurance.
James Fulton, executive assistant to Prosecutor Peter Carlisle, said that office could not comment on the case beyond the fact that a penal summons had been issued to Waihe'e.
Police would not comment on the case other than to say the results of their investigation of the case had been forwarded to the prosecutor's office.
Requests for comment left with Waihe'e's office and on his cell phone Thursday and yesterday were not returned.
Waihe'e, the son of former Gov. John Waihe'e, was involved in a motor vehicle accident shortly before midnight May 10 in which the car he was driving collided with a pickup truck on 'Auwaiolimu Street near Punchbowl National Memorial Cemetery.
One HPD officer who spoke to Waihe'e shortly after the collision reported, "As Waihe'e spoke I could smell a strong odor of an alcoholic type beverage coming from his breath."
That officer, Ian Ibrao, said in his police report that "Waihe'e was also observed having red glassy bloodshot eyes and spoke very slowly with a slurred speech."
Waihe'e "appeared very disoriented" as he sat in his car, a 1991 Toyota MR2, as officers questioned him about possible injuries, the police report said. The air bags in the car had been deployed and the windshield was cracked.
Because Waihe'e was taken to The Queen's Medical Center for treatment of possible injuries, he was not given a Breathalyzer test at the scene, but a blood sample was drawn at the hospital for testing of blood-alcohol content. Results of that test were not made public yesterday.
The driver of the other vehicle, Victoria Tauanuu, referred questions to her lawyer, Jason Tani, who declined comment.
Ronald Sakata, head of the Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office of the state Judiciary, said that delays are common in suspected drunken-driving cases when blood tests rather than Breathalyzers are administered.
State law requires a driver arrested on a charge of drunken driving lose his or her license for six months while the criminal charge, if contested, is adjudicated by the courts.
But that law only applies when a driver is arrested, Sakata said. A hearing on the administration license revocation must be held within eight days of the arrest. But if there is no arrest, the automatic six-month revocation law does not apply, said Sakata. Charges must be brought later via an indictment or through a court filing that results in a penal summons directing the driver to appear in court to answer the drunken-driving charge.
Leah Marx, executive director of the Mothers Against Drunk Driving Hawaii chapter, said yesterday that it sometimes takes "months and months" for charges to be filed in drunken-driving cases that involve injuries or hospitalization.
Given those circumstances, an individual suspected of drunken driving is not subject to the automatic license revocation law.
Waihe'e, 37, was first elected to the OHA board of trustees in 2000.
State traffic court filings show he received several speeding tickets from 1996 to 1999 but otherwise has a good driving record.
In the May 2007 accident, Tauanuu told police she was backing out of her driveway and was stopped in traffic when Waihe'e's vehicle ran into the passenger side of her pickup truck.
Her nephew told police that after the collision, Waihe'e's vehicle "burned out in reverse and collided into a rock wall."
Reach Jim Dooley at jdooley@honoluluadvertiser.com.
Correction: In a previous version of this story, Ronald Sakata, director of the Administrative License Revocation Office of District Court, discussed delays in the processing of blood samples taken after an accident involving injuries. His comments did not concern blood samples taken as a result of suspected drunken-driving cases. The story combined legal elements and consequences of criminal DUI cases and administrative license revocations, which are separate procedures.