6 Haw. App. 569 - State v. Rolison’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “§ 11-111-1 Definitions. As used in this chapter: * * * “Reference sample” means a solution, ampoule, lens, or air sample that registers on an appropriate instrument, a known concentration of ethyl alcohol. * * * § 11-111-2.10 Testing for accuracy or calibration of all breath testing instruments and related accessories employed pursuant to this chapter shall comply with the following: (1) The supervisor shall assure that testing for accuracy or calibration is done; (2) Calibration testing shall be done not less frequently than every thirty days and after every instance of maintenance or repair; (3) Methods recommended by the manufacturer or approved by the department for the testing for accuracy or calibration shall be employed; (4) Results of tests for accuracy or calibration shall be noted in a permanent record, as required by Section 11-1 libia) (2)[J § 11-111-2.l(k) The recommended calibration testing method shall use a minimum of two reference samples of known alcohol concentration at a known temperature within the range of one hundredths to thirty hundredths per cent weight per volume or higher known alcohol concentrations that are recommended by the breath testing instrument’s manufac turer. The results of the analysis shall agree with the reference sample value within the limits of plus or minus one hundredths per cent weight per volume or such limits set by the director. § 11-111-2.1(1) An accuracy verification test shall be performed during the actual breath test seq”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 7 Haw. App. 368 - State v. Christie · 6 Haw. App. 624 - State v. Lewis

2. “a proper foundation must be laid “showing that (1) the Intoxilyzer was in proper working order; (2) its operator was qualified; and (3) the test was properly administered.” [Aso,] “in meeting the foundational prerequisites for the admission of the Intoxilyzer test result there must be a showing of strict compliance with those provisions of [Chapter 111 of Title 11 of the Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR or Rules)] which have a direct bearing on the validity and accuracy of the test result.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ige v. Administrative Director of the Court

3. “are not persuaded that the Intoxilyzer is "fail-safe” in all respects, including its accuracy regarding the test result. We defer to the legislature’s appointed expert, the Department of Health, to determine whether the Intoxilyzer is totally “fail-safe.” Until such determination is made, the State must strictly comply with [department of health rules] regarding testing for accuracy to meet the foundational prerequisites. Id. at 573-74 , 733 P.2d at 329 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Rabusitz