Legal Opinion · Dissent

Freitas v. Administrative Director of the Courts

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided July 25, 2005No. 25323Published

1Dissent

Dissenting opinion by

ACOBA, J.

I respectfully dissent as to the partial majority opinion in Part III, upholding the ID procedure of the Administrative Driver’s License Revocation Office (ADLRO). The ID procedure constituted an unconstitutional limitation on Freitas’s right to a public hearing. The partial opinion in Part III, sanctioning as it does a sign-in procedure at public hearings, will have a deleterious and potentially inhibiting effect on the right to attend similar hearings freely and openly and without needless restriction, but more troubling, it diverts focus in any particular case…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Neder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  3. United States v. O'BrienSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  4. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1983
  5. State v. JenkinsHawaii Supreme Court · 2000

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API