---

DENNIS ODA / DODA@STARBULLETIN.COM To hearing officer Glenn Nagata, right, attorney Earle Partington objects to having proceedings held in the lobby of the Driver's License Revocation Office lobby, as a witness looks on.

---

Hearing impaired

Distractions make license
revocation hearings difficult
for those wanting privacy

The hearing officer's tiny desk sits to one side of the lobby, no more than 10 feet from a front door that opens onto a busy city street. A receptionist is nearby, speaking in a hushed voice on the phone. She tries not to disrupt the hearing.

As an attorney addresses the hearing officer, who uses a palm-sized recorder to tape what's being said, the din of traffic on South King Street provides steady background noise. Cars are zipping by, no more than 25 feet away.

The proceedings are taking place in the public lobby of the Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office, even though the state agency has three hearing rooms elsewhere in the building.

But on Wednesday morning of last week, hearing officer Glenn Nagata decided to use one corner of the reception area, creating a makeshift hearing room, to conduct official business for this particular case.

The reason? Attorney Earle Partington's client, whose license was revoked for drunken driving, objected to the requirement that anyone entering the three regular hearing rooms show a photo ID card and sign a log sheet.

The identification and sign-in system already is the focus of a dispute before the Hawaii Supreme Court. Partington has argued that the system is unconstitutional and tramples on people's right to privacy.

No other public hearing process in the judicial system -- the revocation office is part of the state Judiciary -- uses the ID and sign-in procedure, Partington said.

The state, however, believes the arrangement is a reasonable way to provide security and deter inappropriate behavior among the dozens of people who attend revocation hearings each week.

With the Supreme Court decision pending, two of eight officers who preside over the hearings have used the lobby in recent weeks to hold a handful of sessions, accommodating those who object to the photo ID and sign-in system.

Partington said a public lobby is an inappropriate place to hold a hearing. At one session he attended recently, the ringing of a cowbell hanging on the front door repeatedly disrupted the proceedings as people came in and out, he said.

When large trucks or buses pass by on South King, "you can hardly hear a word," Partington added.

"This would be a joke if it weren't so serious," the attorney said. "Something is terribly wrong here. They have three good hearing rooms, but they refuse to hold my client's hearing in there because he's exercising his right to a public hearing."

Ronald Sakata, head of the license revocation office, defended use of the lobby.

He said the area isn't heavily used by the public, the office noise is kept to a minimum and the tape recordings are a sufficient record of the proceedings.

Sakata acknowledged that the setting doesn't provide the best of conditions but stressed that the agency was trying to meet its responsibility of providing a public hearing in a timely and fair fashion.

He also estimated that no more than four or five sessions have been held in the lobby, a minuscule percentage compared with the roughly 50 to 60 hearings held each week.

Sakata said the hearing officers are within their discretionary authority to hold hearings in the lobby, and he supports their decisions. But Sakata said such decisions don't reflect a policy for the office, and he doesn't believe they undermine the state's position in the Supreme Court case.

Until the agency is told otherwise, it will continue denying access to the hearing rooms to anyone who can't produce a photo ID or won't sign in, according to Sakata.

The office so strictly enforces the policy that uniformed police officers who show up to testify have been denied entry for failing to produce an ID card, and in one case the hearing was held in the lobby so the officer could testify, Partington said.

One of his clients decided to challenge the policy after someone was denied entry to the client's hearing. The person was barred even though she was willing to submit to a search via metal detectors, the common method for screening people entering secured areas.

In the Supreme Court appeal, Partington argued that the sign-in system, begun in May 2001 as a way to prevent unidentified people from entering the inner areas of the office, was established without solid evidence showing its effectiveness. He also argued that the policy was started without regard to privacy rights of those asked to sign in and to the accused's constitutional right to an open hearing.

The American Civil Liberties Union has backed Partington in the dispute, saying the system raises concerns about public access to the courts. Some people might be apprehensive about placing their names on a list maintained by the government, the ACLU contends.

But the state has said the identification system has proved effective in other settings and serves as a deterrent in ways that metal detectors and the presence of law enforcement officers cannot. It also argues that a litigant in a civil matter has no right to an open hearing, unlike defendants in a criminal case.

At Wednesday's hearing, Partington objected to use of the lobby for his client's proceedings, but Nagata, the hearing officer, wasn't swayed.

"This is a public hearing, and I feel it is sufficient as far as constitutional standards are concerned," Nagata said.