State v. Hill

*83OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBERT S. SCHWARTZ, County Judge.

THIS CAUSE WAS before the Court on 3-30-86 pursuant to the Defendant’s motion to suppress the results of the breathalyzer test and the Court after having heard the argument of the parties, denies the motion.

In reaching this decision, the Court finds that the test was administered substantially in accordance with the rules and regulations adopted by HRS and that the defect in the procedures was insubstantial.

Chapter 316.1932(l)(b)(l) does not requiré strict compliance with HRS regulations, nor does it define substantial compliance. Further,…