NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 16-APR-2026 08:11 AM Dkt. 33 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
LEANDRO LARA BICALHO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS, Respondent-Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION (CASE NO. 1DAA-23-00008)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.)
Petitioner-Appellant Leandro Lara Bicalho appeals from
the District Court of the First Circuit's December 29, 2023
"Decision and Order Affirming Administrative Revocation and
Dismissing Appeal" and Judgment. 1
On appeal, Bicalho contends the district court was
wrong in determining that the denial of his request to issue a
subpoena was harmless.
1 The Honorable Bryant G.F.Y. Zane presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to
the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve this
appeal as discussed below, and affirm.
In January 2023, Bicalho was arrested for Operating a
Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OVUII). Honolulu
Police Department (HPD) Sergeant Jared Spiker (Sgt. Spiker) and
HPD Officer Alvin Koike (Officer Koike) observed Bicalho
driving, and HPD Officer C. Oallesma (Officer Oallesma)
conducted the field sobriety test.
Six days later, the Administrative Driver's License
Revocation Office (ADLRO) revoked Bicalho's license. Bicalho
requested a hearing.
The hearing was initially scheduled for February 2023,
but was continued several times at Bicalho's request. During
that time, the Hearings Officer granted subpoenas for, among
other things, (1) the officers' body-worn camera footage of the
arrest and (2) Sgt. Spiker's disciplinary record "and other
records showing his dishonesty and untruthfulness."
By the June 2023 hearing, the Hearings Officer
received the records related to Sgt. Spiker but the case was
continued so Bicalho could request the video footage mentioned
in State v. Su, 147 Hawaiʻi 272, 465 P.3d 719 (2020). To that
end, Bicalho requested to subpoena "Steven Alm, the Honolulu
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Prosecuting Attorney or custodian of potential discovery, for
the 'video of the incident at the ALA MOANA HOTEL discussed in
[Su] from State v. Thomas relating to [Sgt.] Spiker [(Thomas
Video)] which video has been previously provided to OVUII
defense attorneys in cases for arrests by Spiker.'"
The Hearings Officer denied Bicalho's request to issue
a subpoena for the Thomas Video. However, the Hearings Officer
"took administrative notice of [Su], specifically that 'the
still photograph of the [Thomas Video] show[s] that, contrary to
Officer Spiker's police report and trial testimony, Thomas did
not have his fists clenched and was not throwing punches.'"
(Third brackets in original.)
During the September 2023 hearing, Bicalho argued that
he could not properly question Sgt. Spiker without the Thomas
Video. The Hearings Officer affirmed the ADLRO's revocation of
Bicalho's license. 2
Bicalho petitioned the district court for judicial
review. The district court affirmed the revocation of Bicalho's
license.
The district court ruled that the Thomas Video was
relevant and the request for a subpoena was properly made and
2 The Hearings Officer affirmed the ADLRO's revocation in part, amending the decision by deleting the finding that Bicalho refused to submit to a breath or blood test and by reducing the revocation period to one year, ending on February 19, 2024. Refusing the breath or blood test is not an issue in this appeal. 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
not deficient and, thus, the Hearings Officer erred by denying
the request. However, the district court further ruled that the
Hearings Officer's error was harmless because, "[c]onsidering
the facts and circumstances of which Officer Koike was aware at
the time from his own observations and from the information
provided to him, there existed probable cause to believe
[Bicalho] had committed OVUII"; "[a]t the time of arrest, there
was more than a mere suspicion that [Bicalho] had committed
OVUII"; and "by the close of evidence there was proof by a
preponderance of the evidence in that it was more likely than
not that" Bicalho had committed OVUII.
Assuming, arguendo, the Hearings Officer erred in
denying Bicalho's request to issue a subpoena for the Thomas
Video, the district court was correct in determining the error
was harmless.
When considering whether error is harmless, the
question is whether "there is a reasonable possibility that the
error might have contributed" to the revocation of Bicalho's
license. See, e.g., State v. Sylva, 153 Hawaiʻi 447, 458, 541
P.3d 1210, 1221 (2023) (emphasis omitted). Under Hawaiʻi Revised
Statutes (HRS) § 291E-38(e) (2020), the administrative
revocation shall be affirmed only if (1) reasonable suspicion
existed to stop the vehicle, (2) probable cause existed to
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
believe the driver was OVUII, and (3) there was a preponderance
of the evidence showing the driver was OVUII. 3
Here, Bicalho argues he needed the Thomas Video to
properly impeach Sgt. Spiker. Thus, we look at whether there
was a reasonable possibility that the failure to impeach
Sgt. Spiker might have contributed to the revocation of
Bicalho's license. See, e.g., Sylva, 153 Hawaiʻi at 458, 541
P.3d at 1221. To do this, we disregard the evidence based on
Sgt. Spiker's observations and determine whether the evidence
based on Officers Koike's and Oallesma's observations supported
the Hearings Officer's decision.
Officer Koike observed Bicalho driving at 3:00 in the
morning with no headlights on. Officer Koike then saw Bicalho
"cross over a single solid white line" from lane 2 to lane 1 and
"immediately cross back into lane 2 unsafely, cutting off the
police blue and white vehicle." Based on Officer Koike's
3 HRS § 291E-38(e), "Administrative hearing; procedure; decision," provides in relevant part:
(e) The director shall affirm the administrative revocation only if the director determines that:
(1) There existed reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle . . . .;
(2) There existed probable cause to believe that the respondent operated the vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant; and
(3) The evidence proves by a preponderance that:
(A) The respondent operated the vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant[.]
5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
observations, there was reasonable suspicion to stop Bicalho.
State v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 16-APR-2026 08:11 AM Dkt. 33 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
LEANDRO LARA BICALHO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS, Respondent-Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION (CASE NO. 1DAA-23-00008)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.)
Petitioner-Appellant Leandro Lara Bicalho appeals from
the District Court of the First Circuit's December 29, 2023
"Decision and Order Affirming Administrative Revocation and
Dismissing Appeal" and Judgment. 1
On appeal, Bicalho contends the district court was
wrong in determining that the denial of his request to issue a
subpoena was harmless.
1 The Honorable Bryant G.F.Y. Zane presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to
the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve this
appeal as discussed below, and affirm.
In January 2023, Bicalho was arrested for Operating a
Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OVUII). Honolulu
Police Department (HPD) Sergeant Jared Spiker (Sgt. Spiker) and
HPD Officer Alvin Koike (Officer Koike) observed Bicalho
driving, and HPD Officer C. Oallesma (Officer Oallesma)
conducted the field sobriety test.
Six days later, the Administrative Driver's License
Revocation Office (ADLRO) revoked Bicalho's license. Bicalho
requested a hearing.
The hearing was initially scheduled for February 2023,
but was continued several times at Bicalho's request. During
that time, the Hearings Officer granted subpoenas for, among
other things, (1) the officers' body-worn camera footage of the
arrest and (2) Sgt. Spiker's disciplinary record "and other
records showing his dishonesty and untruthfulness."
By the June 2023 hearing, the Hearings Officer
received the records related to Sgt. Spiker but the case was
continued so Bicalho could request the video footage mentioned
in State v. Su, 147 Hawaiʻi 272, 465 P.3d 719 (2020). To that
end, Bicalho requested to subpoena "Steven Alm, the Honolulu
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Prosecuting Attorney or custodian of potential discovery, for
the 'video of the incident at the ALA MOANA HOTEL discussed in
[Su] from State v. Thomas relating to [Sgt.] Spiker [(Thomas
Video)] which video has been previously provided to OVUII
defense attorneys in cases for arrests by Spiker.'"
The Hearings Officer denied Bicalho's request to issue
a subpoena for the Thomas Video. However, the Hearings Officer
"took administrative notice of [Su], specifically that 'the
still photograph of the [Thomas Video] show[s] that, contrary to
Officer Spiker's police report and trial testimony, Thomas did
not have his fists clenched and was not throwing punches.'"
(Third brackets in original.)
During the September 2023 hearing, Bicalho argued that
he could not properly question Sgt. Spiker without the Thomas
Video. The Hearings Officer affirmed the ADLRO's revocation of
Bicalho's license. 2
Bicalho petitioned the district court for judicial
review. The district court affirmed the revocation of Bicalho's
license.
The district court ruled that the Thomas Video was
relevant and the request for a subpoena was properly made and
2 The Hearings Officer affirmed the ADLRO's revocation in part, amending the decision by deleting the finding that Bicalho refused to submit to a breath or blood test and by reducing the revocation period to one year, ending on February 19, 2024. Refusing the breath or blood test is not an issue in this appeal. 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
not deficient and, thus, the Hearings Officer erred by denying
the request. However, the district court further ruled that the
Hearings Officer's error was harmless because, "[c]onsidering
the facts and circumstances of which Officer Koike was aware at
the time from his own observations and from the information
provided to him, there existed probable cause to believe
[Bicalho] had committed OVUII"; "[a]t the time of arrest, there
was more than a mere suspicion that [Bicalho] had committed
OVUII"; and "by the close of evidence there was proof by a
preponderance of the evidence in that it was more likely than
not that" Bicalho had committed OVUII.
Assuming, arguendo, the Hearings Officer erred in
denying Bicalho's request to issue a subpoena for the Thomas
Video, the district court was correct in determining the error
was harmless.
When considering whether error is harmless, the
question is whether "there is a reasonable possibility that the
error might have contributed" to the revocation of Bicalho's
license. See, e.g., State v. Sylva, 153 Hawaiʻi 447, 458, 541
P.3d 1210, 1221 (2023) (emphasis omitted). Under Hawaiʻi Revised
Statutes (HRS) § 291E-38(e) (2020), the administrative
revocation shall be affirmed only if (1) reasonable suspicion
existed to stop the vehicle, (2) probable cause existed to
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
believe the driver was OVUII, and (3) there was a preponderance
of the evidence showing the driver was OVUII. 3
Here, Bicalho argues he needed the Thomas Video to
properly impeach Sgt. Spiker. Thus, we look at whether there
was a reasonable possibility that the failure to impeach
Sgt. Spiker might have contributed to the revocation of
Bicalho's license. See, e.g., Sylva, 153 Hawaiʻi at 458, 541
P.3d at 1221. To do this, we disregard the evidence based on
Sgt. Spiker's observations and determine whether the evidence
based on Officers Koike's and Oallesma's observations supported
the Hearings Officer's decision.
Officer Koike observed Bicalho driving at 3:00 in the
morning with no headlights on. Officer Koike then saw Bicalho
"cross over a single solid white line" from lane 2 to lane 1 and
"immediately cross back into lane 2 unsafely, cutting off the
police blue and white vehicle." Based on Officer Koike's
3 HRS § 291E-38(e), "Administrative hearing; procedure; decision," provides in relevant part:
(e) The director shall affirm the administrative revocation only if the director determines that:
(1) There existed reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle . . . .;
(2) There existed probable cause to believe that the respondent operated the vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant; and
(3) The evidence proves by a preponderance that:
(A) The respondent operated the vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant[.]
5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
observations, there was reasonable suspicion to stop Bicalho.
State v. Alvarez, 138 Hawaiʻi 173, 182, 378 P.3d 889, 898 (2016)
("To justify an investigative stop, . . . the police officer
must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which,
taken together with rational inferences from those facts,
reasonably warrant that intrusion."); State v. Kaleohano, 99
Hawaiʻi 370, 378, 56 P.3d 138, 146 (2002) (explaining that
initial stop was appropriate where defendant was swerving and
crossing double center line).
When Officer Koike approached Bicalho, Officer Koike
"immediately detected a strong odor of alcoholic type beverage
emanating from [Bicalho's] breath" and observed his "eyes to
[be] watery and glassy" and his "speech to be slurred."
Similarly, Officer Oallesma "observed a strong odor of alcohol
on [Bicalho's] breath and his eyes appeared red, watery, and
glassy." Officer Oallesma also observed that Bicalho "had a
hard time maintaining his balance." Bicalho told Officer
Oallesma "he had two to three beers."
Officer Oallesma conducted the field sobriety test.
As to the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test, Bicalho "exhibited six
out of a possible six clues." As to the Walk and Turn Test,
Bicalho "exhibited a total of five clues out of a possible
eight." And as to the One Leg Stand Test, Bicalho "exhibited a
total of three clues out of a possible four." Based on Officer
6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Koike's and Officer Oallesma's observations, there was probable
cause to believe Bicalho committed OVUII. State v. Ontai, 84
Hawaiʻi 56, 63, 929 P.2d 69, 76 (1996) ("Probable cause is
established by 'a state of facts as would lead a person of
ordinary caution or prudence to believe and conscientiously
entertain a strong suspicion of guilt of the accused.'" (quoting
State v. Chung, 75 Haw. 398, 409-10, 862 P.2d 1063, 1070
(1993)).
After disregarding Sgt. Spiker's observations, the
totality of Officer Koike's and Officer Oallesma's observations
nonetheless showed it was more probable than not that Bicalho
operated his vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant.
Coyle v. Compton, 85 Hawaiʻi 197, 202, 940 P.2d 404, 409
(App. 1997) ("Preponderance of the evidence is defined as 'proof
which leads the jury to find that the existence of the contested
fact is more probable than its nonexistence.'"); State v.
Mitchell, 94 Hawaiʻi 388, 399, 15 P.3d 314, 325 (App. 2000) ("The
testimonies of the police officers painted a classic portrait of
intoxication. [The defendant]'s breath was redolent of alcohol.
His speech was slurred. His eyes were red, bloodshot and
watery. . . . He had difficulty walking. He was swaying and
unsteady on his feet; indeed, he had difficulty standing and
instead leaned against his vehicle.").
7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Thus, the district court was correct in holding that
the Hearings Officer's error (if any) was harmless. Cf.
Oyadomari v. Admin. Dir. of Cts., 123 Hawaiʻi 312, 234 P.3d 694,
No. 29918, 2010 WL 2904672, at *3 (App. July 26, 2010) (mem.
op.) (applying harmless error to hearings officer's denial of a
request to issue a subpoena).
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court's
December 29, 2023 "Decision and Order Affirming Administrative
Revocation and Dismissing Appeal" and Judgment.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, April 16, 2026.
On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Presiding Judge Earle A. Partington, for Petitioner-Appellant. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge Randall S. Nishiyama, Kodai S. Okano, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Alyssa-Marie Yukiko Kau, Associate Judge Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent-Appellee.