The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Thomas G. Dullam for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII), specifically marijuana. The court's decision, filed on September 11, 2026, confirms the lower court's ruling that Dullam was guilty based on the evidence presented during his trial. This ruling is significant as it reinforces the legal standards surrounding DUI cases involving marijuana in Hawaii.
The case originated from an incident on June 11, 2022, when Dullam was found smoking marijuana in a parked vehicle. The ruling impacts not only Dullam but also sets a precedent for future cases involving marijuana impairment and DUI laws in the state.
Dullam was charged after Hawaii County Police Department Detective Jason Foxworthy observed him in the driver's seat of a running vehicle, passing around a bong with other occupants. Upon approaching the vehicle, Detective Foxworthy noted the strong odor of burnt marijuana and asked Dullam to exit the vehicle. Dullam was subsequently subjected to a series of field sobriety tests and arrested on suspicion of OVUII.
The legal dispute arose when Dullam appealed his conviction, arguing that the District Court made several errors during his trial. He raised four points of error, including the denial of his motion to suppress his responses to medical rule-out (MRO) questions, the admission of testimony regarding field sobriety tests, and the qualifications of the officers who testified about his impairment. Dullam contended that without the allegedly improperly admitted evidence, there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction.
The court ruled on each of Dullam's points. It found that the District Court did not err in denying the motion to suppress his MRO responses. Dullam argued that he was in custody and should have received Miranda warnings before being questioned. However, the court determined that probable cause for arrest had not developed at that point, and therefore, he was not considered to be in custody.
The court stated, "Dullam's assertion that he was 'in custody' for Miranda purposes because probable cause existed to support the 'crime' of marijuana possession under HRS § 712-1249 lacks merit, and the District Court was not wrong in denying Dullam's motion to suppress in this regard." This ruling clarifies the conditions under which a suspect is considered in custody and the requirements for police questioning.
Regarding the testimony of the police officers, the court ruled that the District Court did not err in allowing Detective Foxworthy to testify about the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST) and the Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) evaluation. Dullam's objections to the officers' qualifications were deemed insufficient to preserve the issues for appeal, as he did not provide specific objections during the trial.
The court noted that Dullam's general lack-of-foundation objection did not adequately inform the trial court of the specific issues at hand. The court emphasized that "generally, the failure to properly raise an issue at the trial level precludes a party from raising that issue on appeal."
Furthermore, the court addressed Dullam's claim that Officer Roberg's opinion that Dullam was impaired by cannabis should not have been admitted. Dullam conceded that he did not object to this testimony at trial, leading the court to rule that this challenge was also waived.
Despite Dullam's arguments, the court concluded that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support his conviction. The court highlighted that Dullam was found in the driver's seat of a running vehicle, exhibited signs of impairment during the SFSTs, and admitted to smoking several bong hits of marijuana.
The court affirmed the District Court's ruling, stating, "Considering such evidence in the strongest light for the prosecution, Dullam's conviction was supported by substantial evidence." This affirmation serves as a reminder of the legal standards for DUI cases involving marijuana and the importance of proper police procedure during arrests and questioning.
Moving forward, this ruling may impact how similar cases are handled in Hawaii, particularly concerning the standards for determining impairment and the admissibility of evidence. The decision reinforces the need for clear communication and proper legal procedures during DUI investigations.
As for what comes next, Dullam may seek further legal recourse, potentially appealing to a higher court, although details regarding any such plans were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may also influence ongoing discussions about marijuana laws and DUI regulations in Hawaii.