291D-1

Purpose

[§291D-1] Purpose. Act 222, Session Laws of Hawaii 1978, began the process of decriminalizing certain traffic offenses, not of a serious nature, to the status of violations. In response to a request by the legislature, the judiciary prepared a report in 1987 that recommended, among other things, further decriminalization of traffic offenses, elimination of most traffic arraignments, disposition of uncontested violations by mail, and informal hearings where the violation or the proposed penalty is questioned. The legislature finds that further decriminalization of certain traffic offenses and streamlining of the handling of those traffic cases will achieve a more expeditious system for the judicial processing of traffic infractions. The system of processing traffic infractions established by this chapter will:

(1) Eliminate the long and tedious arraignment proceeding for a majority of traffic matters;

(2) Facilitate and encourage the resolution of many traffic infractions through the payment of a monetary assessment;

(3) Speed the disposition of contested cases through a hearing, similar to small claims proceedings, in which the rules of evidence will not apply and the court will consider as evidence the notice of traffic infraction, applicable police reports, or other written statements by the police officer who issued the notice, any other relevant written material, and any evidence or statements by the person contesting the notice of traffic infraction;

(4) Dispense in most cases with the need for witnesses, including law enforcement officers, to be present and for the participation of the prosecuting attorney;

(5) Allow judicial, prosecutorial, and law enforcement resources to be used more efficiently and effectively; and

(6) Save the taxpayers money and reduce their frustration with the judicial system by simplifying the traffic court process.

The legislature further finds that this chapter will not require expansion of the current traffic division of the district courts, but will achieve greater efficiency through more effective use of existing resources of the district courts. [L 1993, c 214, pt of §2]