USCON AM-0004- ANNOTATIONS

Suppression of Evidence Without the Aid of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. 8 HBJ 109.

In Search of Reason at the Border. 10 HBJ 101.

"Totem Pole" Hearsay and the Search Warrant Affidavit. 12 HBJ No. 4 Winter 1977, pg. 3.

State v. Sherlock: Police Use of a Controlled Purchase of Contraband to Corroborate an Informant's Tip. 12 UH L. Rev. 237.

Reasonable Searches Absent Individualized Suspicion: Is There a Drug-Testing Exception to the Fourth Amendment Warrant Requirement After Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association? 12 UH L. Rev. 343.

State v. Rothman: Expanding the Individual's Right to Privacy Under the Hawaii Constitution. 13 UH L. Rev. 619.

The Protection of Individual Rights Under Hawai`i's Constitution. 14 UH L. Rev. 311.

State v. Quino: The Hawai`i Supreme Court Pulls Out All the "Stops". 15 UH L. Rev. 289.

Criminal Procedure Rights Under the Hawaii Constitution Since 1992. 18 UH L. Rev. 683.

Vernonia Sch. Dist. v. Acton: Now Children Must Shed Their Constitutional Rights at the Schoolhouse Gate. 18 UH L. Rev. 869.

Cyberprivacy on the Corporate Intranet: Does the Law Allow Private-Sector Employers to Read Their Employees' E-mail? 20 UH L. Rev. 165.

Wyoming v. Houghton: The Bright Line Search Includes Passengers' Belongings. 22 UH L. Rev. 645.

United States v. Montero-Camargo Elimination of the Race Factor Develops Piecemeal: The Ninth Circuit Approach. 23 UH L. Rev. 703.

Kyllo v. United States: The Warrantless Use of Thermal Imagery Devices, and Why the Public Use Standard Proves Unworkable. 24 UH L. Rev. 383.

Still Wondering After All These Years: Ferguson v. City of Charleston and the Supreme Court's Lack of Guidance over Drug Testing and the Special Needs Doctrine. 24 UH L. Rev. 797.

Defendants occupying vehicle unlawfully had no standing to contest search of vehicle. 45 H. 295, 367 P.2d 499.

When property is seized in defendant's home, defendant may invoke protection without asserting ownership of property. 45 H. 622, 372 P.2d 365.

Overnight guest of tenant of apartment had right to privacy in premises of that apartment; a person has right to privacy wherever the person may legitimately be. 51 H. 62, 451 P.2d 257.

One who is the victim of search and seizure directed against oneself has standing to raise question of validity of search. 52 H. 100, 470 P.2d 510.

Timely motion to suppress evidence prior to trial, or justification for interruption of trial, is necessary. 45 H. 295, 367 P.2d 499. When pre-trial motion unnecessary. 45 H. 622, 372 P.2d 365.

Under HRCP 41(e), trial judge has discretion to entertain motion even if untimely made. 51 H. 62, 451 P.2d 257.

Drug enforcement officers had reasonable suspicion that defendant was transporting drugs to make investigative stop. 490 U.S. 1.

If inaccuracies in warrant affidavit are not deliberate and remaining allegations support probable cause, seizure based on the warrant is lawful. 575 F.2d 209.

Absent exigent circumstances, seizure of items alleged to violate Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act must comply with basic 4th Amendment requirements. 641 F.2d 1289.

General requirements for probable cause. 703 F.2d 408.

Even though article seized illegally, forfeiture may proceed if requirement for forfeiture can be satisfied with untainted evidence. 715 F.2d 1339.

Probable cause for search of vehicle and plastic bag within. 757 F.2d 969.

Defendant's purchase of printing equipment and ink, questions about printing, and conversation established probable cause for defendant's arrest for counterfeiting. Untainted information independently established probable cause for search of vehicle. 790 F.2d 789.

Under circumstances, affidavit provided substantial basis for warrant though based on allegedly anonymous and conclusory allegations. 795 F.2d 841.

Seizure was reasonable when defendants were detained at airport while dog sniffed their luggage, and during detention federal agent held their airplane tickets and drivers' licenses; dog's sniff of luggage not a search; admissibility of notes discovered in envelope in defendant's luggage, after search, where warrant covered only drugs. 796 F.2d 257.

No "plain view" seizure since government agents' presence no longer justified. 807 F.2d 792.

Defendant was seized when grabbed by the arm and sat down for questioning; seizure not based on reasonable suspicion. 808 F.2d 1366.

A person who is detained illegally is not immunized from prosecution for crimes committed during the person's detention. 812 F.2d 1250.

Detention of packages suspected of containing marijuana for seven to twenty-three days prior to obtaining a search warrant violated the 4th Amendment. 849 F.2d 414.

Investigatory detention was justified. 871 F.2d 1497.

Warrant authorizing search and seizure of art gallery's entire works was overbroad. 875 F.2d 747.

Detention was reasonable where police detained party for interview but waited until party was sober. 879 F.2d 607.

No seizure occurred when defendant voluntarily gave agent airline ticket. 887 F.2d 232.

No reasonable expectation of privacy in illegally taken seal meat stored in freezer where defendant merely had possession to store meat, not right to exclude others from freezer. 945 F.2d 254.

Not applicable to search of nonresident aliens on ship in international waters. 946 F.2d 608.

Probable cause demonstrated for warrant authorizing drug raid on defendants' home independent of readings taken by infrared device during helicopter surveillance of home. 984 F.2d 1053.

Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in hallway outside defendant's apartment in high security high rise apartment building. 3 F.3d 1239.

Employee's contention that employee's designation as a witness in IRS summons to obtain handwriting exemplars was a calculated maneuver to circumvent employee's Fourth Amendment privilege against unreasonable searches and seizures and due employee's process rights under both Fifth Amendment and IRS regulations, rejected. 94 F.3d 1342.

Where an undercover agent is invited into a home, establishes the existence of probable cause to arrest or search, and immediately summons help from other officers, the other officers' warrantless entry does not violate Fourth Amendment. 103 F.3d 1475.

Search warrant authorizing search of a residence also authorizes without so stating the search of the residence's curtilage. 104 F.3d 272.

District court's denial of appellant's motion to suppress evidence acquired after Federal Express employees opened appellant's package and contacted Drug Enforcement Administration because they suspected it contained illegal drugs, affirmed, where appellant failed to establish Federal Express was acting as an instrument or agent of the government. 153 F.3d 1079.

When an administrative search scheme encompasses both a permissible and an impermissible purpose, and when the officer conducting the search has broad discretion in carrying out the search, that search does not meet Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirements. Secondary purpose for administrative search was improper, where primary purpose behind search at federal building was to look for weapons and explosives, and secondary purpose was to look for other materials that violated regulations, e.g., drugs. 156 F.3d 963.

Fourth Amendment had no application, where defendants challenged "walk and talk" procedure in which police officer made initial contact with defendants, arguing that, although in form consensual, the approach was in fact coercive, defendants yielding to pressure exerted by a police officer showing officer's identification and asking if they were willing to speak. 177 F.3d 1130.

Where defendants contended that officer lacked probable cause to arrest either of them, probable cause that was sufficient for officer to arrest [other person] also was sufficient for officer to arrest the two persons officer had observed acting in concert with [other person]. 177 F.3d 1130.

District court judgment affirmed, concerning order denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained by police during allegedly illegal search of defendant's home; defendant contended, inter alia, that observations made by officers while standing within curtilage of defendant's home were made in violation of defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, and were wrongfully relied upon by magistrate in issuing search warrant, arguing that officers had no right to approach defendant's home in an attempt to investigate their suspicions, officers violated defendant's Fourth Amendment rights by leaving front door and circling defendant's home, and marijuana plants were not in plain view of officers. 236 F.3d 1054.

Defendants lacked standing to challenge police entry into hotel room at 12:40 p.m., where a defendant had checked out of the hotel before noon and other defendant's expectation of privacy was reasonable only until 12:30 p.m. 241 F.3d 1124.

Where police stopped defendant's rental car after they had received a report from the car's owner that the car was overdue, police had reasonable suspicion to stop the car, even if the report turned out to be mistaken due to its timing, because the police were acting on a police report from the car's owner, whose honesty had not been questioned. 241 F.3d 1124.

Prosecutor entitled to qualified immunity where the right allegedly violated, i.e., Fourth Amendment right not to have a prosecutor, in order to obtain a bail revocation, personally attest to a false statement of a biased source with no investigation of the statement's truth or falsity, was not "clearly established" at the time of the alleged violation. 279 F.3d 1064.

Detention of express mail package addressed to defendant was reasonable, where defendant challenged postal inspector's initial detention of the package and the delay in calling for a canine unit to sniff the package. 313 F.3d 1206.

Telescopic surveillance of apartment by government agents without a warrant held to be an unreasonable search. 415 F. Supp. 1252.

Section 346-42, authorizing inspection of offices and records of medical providers, violated 4th Amendment because it did not require that facts upon which inspection is based be measured against objective standard. 481 F. Supp. 1028.

Prevailing federal law is that warrantless recordings do not violate Fourth Amendment where one party to conversation consents to recording. 526 F. Supp. 1198.

Postal parcel held for seven days without a warrant was an unreasonable seizure. 666 F. Supp. 1424.

The warrantless entry of a home by deception is not a violation. 673 F. Supp. 387.

Applicable to searches and seizures on the high seas. 685 F. Supp. 732.

Exclusionary rule is completely irrelevant to issues involving the operation of grand juries. 707 F. Supp. 1207.

Agent was entitled to open notebook located on passenger seat to see if it contained a weapon. 751 F. Supp. 161.

Police department did not exhibit a deliberate indifference to warrantless stops and arrests. 751 F. Supp. 1385.

Government must demonstrate probable cause to believe that seized property was involved with illegal drugs or money laundering transactions prescribed by statutes. 754 F. Supp. 1467.

Defendants had no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in heat emanations, as incidental byproduct of energy sources used in marijuana cultivation, detected by instrument in helicopter flying above defendants' residence. 773 F. Supp. 220.

Probable cause existed to believe that search of defendant's residence would uncover specific evidence relating to drug trafficking. 800 F. Supp. 892.

Seizure of vehicle proper where probable cause existed to believe vehicle had been used to transport drugs. 803 F. Supp. 352.

Airport "walk and talk" encounter was a consensual exchange under federal law; even if a seizure, it was supported by reasonable suspicion and was therefore valid. 823 F. Supp. 792.

Federal law governed admissibility of evidence in case involving investigatory detention where there was no federal investigative involvement at time of encounter and arrest. 823 F. Supp. 792.

Where plaintiff asserted that defendant police officer and defendant resident manager unlawfully arrested plaintiff, both defendants had probable cause to arrest plaintiff for harassment. 855 F. Supp. 1167.

No government action, where defendant's law partner (off-duty reserve police officer), former secretary, and former secretary's husband (off-duty full-time police officer) removed documents and on-duty police officers sent to law firm did not remove any files or property from law firm. 14 F. Supp. 2d 1194.

Defendant's motion to suppress evidence denied, where government demonstrated that defendant's initial encounter with officer and search were consensual, that there was probable cause for defendant's arrest, and that evidence in issue was therefore lawfully obtained. 191 F. Supp. 2d 1173.

Plaintiffs challenging city and county of Honolulu's practice of charging nonresidents a $3.00 fee to enter bay designated a marine life conservation district and nature preserve were not "seized" in violation of the Fourth Amendment or article I, §7 of the Hawaii constitution; stopping to pay $3.00 entrance fee at turnstile did not constitute an impermissible seizure. 215 F. Supp. 2d 1098.

Effect on confession. 45 H. 622, 372 P.2d 365. Confession tainted by illegal search and seizure must be excluded. 48 H. 204, 397 P.2d 558.

Illegal arrest does not render defendant's statement inadmissible. 48 H. 204, 210, 397 P.2d 558; 49 H. 522, 529-30, 423 P.2d 438.

Use of flashlight by police officer in scanning interior of automobile lawfully stopped for traffic offense is not per se unreasonable search and seizure. 50 H. 461, 443 P.2d 149; 430 F.2d 58.

Place protected; test is whether the place is of such a character as to give rise reasonably to expectation of freedom from governmental intrusion. 52 H. 100, 470 P.2d 510.

Under the facts, warrantless search held not justified by "exigent circumstance" and not "incident to an arrest." 52 H. 100, 470 P.2d 510; 66 H. 499, 666 P.2d 592.

Probable cause: General definition; defendant's reputation as a factor. 52 H. 226, 473 P.2d 567.

Police officer may in appropriate circumstances stop a person to investigate possible criminal activities even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest. 52 H. 497, 479 P.2d 800.

No warrant is required when government secret agent is invited to private home to purchase marijuana and later goes there and makes purchase. 54 H. 513, 510 P.2d 1066.

Search or arrest without warrant valid only when officer has probable cause to believe that a crime is being, was, or is about to be, committed. 54 H. 552, 512 P.2d 551.

Exists when facts and circumstances would warrant reasonable person to believe crime is being committed. 54 H. 552, 512 P.2d 551.

Sufficiency of affidavits based on informer's tip to support issuance of warrant. 55 H. 90, 516 P.2d 65.

Search warrants; manner of executing warrants covering drugs; scope of warrants. 55 H. 90, 516 P.2d 65.

If facts in affidavit together with reasonable inferences support existence of probable cause, appellate court is constrained to uphold that finding by lower court, even though other inferences might point to opposite conclusion. 55 H. 565, 524 P.2d 290. Staleness of information forming basis of affidavit. 55 H. 565, 524 P.2d 290.

Requisites of affidavit for warrant based on informer's tips. 55 H. 565, 524 P.2d 290.

Warrant to search premises does not authorize search of identified possessions of visitors present during execution of warrant. 55 H. 583, 525 P.2d 573.

Street interrogation by police did not constitute "seizure". 56 H. 8, 525 P.2d 1099.

Although initial stop of vehicle was proper, when police without justification required defendant to leave vehicle, unlawful seizure of person occurred. 56 H. 216, 533 P.2d 270.

Disclosure of informer's identity is not required where sole purpose is to challenge finding of probable cause. 58 H. 19, 563 P.2d 990.

Sufficiency of affidavit based on informer's tip to support issuance of warrant. 58 H. 19, 563 P.2d 990.

Helicopter observation of open marijuana patch did not constitute search. 58 H. 412, 570 P.2d 1323.

Sufficiency of affidavit based upon hearsay. 58 H. 485, 572 P.2d 856.

Informant, actively recruited by police, may be considered agent of State, and Fourth Amendment prohibitions would apply to searches made by informant. 58 H. 530, 574 P.2d 1330.

Where officer had to stand upon a crate stacked on a bench to peer through a hole in the drawn drapes covering a window, the occupants had a reasonable expectation of privacy. 59 H. 23, 575 P.2d 462.

Sufficiency of affidavit based on informer's tip. 59 H. 120, 577 P.2d 335.

Discretionary stop of automobile by police officer to investigate possible violation of laws regulating motor vehicles may be made only if supported by a reasonable belief of a violation. 59 H. 130, 577 P.2d 781.

Strip search of prison visitor not unreasonable. 59 H. 366, 580 P.2d 1282.

In seizure of gun without warrant, knowledge of one officer was imputed to the other to establish probable cause. 59 H. 375, 581 P.2d 758.

Investigative stop of automobile held not justified under the circumstances. 59 H. 386, 581 P.2d 765.

Use of evidence wrongfully obtained--permissible scope. 59 H. 572, 584 P.2d 127.

Whether governmental visual surveillance was an unreasonable search depended on whether defendant had exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy. 60 H. 301, 588 P.2d 447.

Marijuana plants exposed to viewing by public are not within reasonable expectation of privacy. 60 H. 318, 589 P.2d 527.

Elements of legitimate expectation of privacy. 61 H. 117, 596 P.2d 773.

"Open view" doctrine applied. 61 H. 124, 596 P.2d 777.

Arrest without warrant for a specific offense was valid where police had probable cause to arrest for a different but closely related offense. 61 H. 291, 602 P.2d 933.

Pre-incarceration search. 61 H. 291, 602 P.2d 933.

Investigative stop and warrantless search of automobile. 61 H. 316, 603 P.2d 143.

Warrantless search of automobile, when permissible; exigent circumstances. 61 H. 492, 605 P.2d 930.

Warrantless entry of residence to effect arrest, when justified. 61 H. 505, 606 P.2d 913.

Where police allowed no one to touch box until a search warrant was obtained, there was a seizure without warrant. 61 H. 505, 606 P.2d 913.

"Stop" or "seizure" occurs when. 61 H. 566, 606 P.2d 1329.

Strip search of prison visitor not unreasonable; opening of balloon recovered from visitor and examination of contents similarly not unreasonable. 62 H. 1, 607 P.2d 1048.

Absent exigent circumstances, police may not enter private building without a warrant. 62 H. 44, 609 P.2d 131; 62 H. 52, 609 P.2d 637.

Where gambling was observable by anyone on adjoining premises, observation by police who trespassed on adjoining premises did not constitute unreasonable search and seizure. 62 H. 44, 609 P.2d 131.

Squatters on government property. 62 H. 52, 609 P.2d 637.

What is knowingly exposed to view and hearing of outsiders is not a subject of protection. 62 H. 52, 609 P.2d 637.

Warrantless search of automobile. 62 H. 59, 610 P.2d 502.

Pre-incarceration search. 62 H. 79, 611 P.2d 130.

Requirement that a warrant "particularly describe the things to be seized" discussed. Severability of provisions violating the particularity requirement. 62 H. 166, 613 P.2d 645.

Warrantless search of footlocker unreasonable in absence of exigency despite existence of probable cause to arrest owner and seize footlocker. 62 H. 238, 615 P.2d 84.

Warrantless search of automobile justified when probable cause and exigent circumstances are present. 62 H. 252, 614 P.2d 393.

Police impoundment of house which curtailed occupant's freedom of movement pending arrival of search warrant constituted seizure of house and contents. 62 H. 377, 615 P.2d 740.

Where valid investigative stop has been made, police may not order person to leave vehicle or conduct protective search unless specific conduct of defendant, reliable information or attendant circumstances indicate person is armed and dangerous. 62 H. 453, 617 P.2d 76.

Sufficiency of informer's tip to support warrantless search. 62 H. 459, 617 P.2d 565.

Warrant required for police to use optical aid to view activity which could not be seen with naked eye. 62 H. 459, 617 P.2d 565.

"Hot pursuit" is merely a criterion to use in determining whether exigency justifies warrantless search. 62 H. 495, 617 P.2d 89.

Warrantless search authorized by exigent circumstances. 62 H. 495, 617 P.2d 89; 64 H. 130, 637 P.2d 1105.

Warrantless automobile search exception did not extend to search of knapsack taken from automobile. 62 H. 660, 619 P.2d 108.

Sufficiency of affidavit to support warrant; citizen informer; eyewitness informer; conduct which is as consistent with innocent activity as with criminal activity. 63 H. 36, 620 P.2d 1072.

Use of binoculars to view contents of greenhouse not visible to naked eye constituted search. 63 H. 90, 621 P.2d 370.

Establishment of probable cause to search house and adjacent areas from discovery of marijuana growing in vacant lot. 63 H. 95, 621 P.2d 374.

Arrest and seizure held valid. 63 H. 488, 630 P.2d 619.

Warrantless search. Exigent circumstances lacking. 63 H. 553, 632 P.2d 1064.

Procedural requirements for seizure of materials in obscenity prosecutions. 63 H. 596, 634 P.2d 80.

City policy requiring inspection prior to entering concert, of all containers or clothing capable of concealing bottles or cans held unreasonable. 64 H. 17, 635 P.2d 946.

Warrantless searches. Probable cause existed to search automobile for firearm. 64 H. 101, 637 P.2d 770.

Illegal arrest or seizure of evidence, without more, does not bar prosecution. Exclusion of tainted evidence is appropriate remedy; purchase of allegedly obscene material from "willing sellers" by private citizen under police direction prior to arrest was actually "preconceived seizure" designed to evade warrant procedures; warrantless arrest for promoting pornography and seizure of material cannot be premised on ad hoc determination by police officer that material was obscene. 64 H. 109, 637 P.2d 1095.

Evidence inadequate to support probable cause for issuance of warrant. 64 H. 399, 641 P.2d 1341.

Warrantless recordation by party to conversation upheld. 64 H. 659, 649 P.2d 346.

No reasonable expectation of privacy in airspace surrounding luggage. Use of dog to sniff luggage for narcotics upheld. 65 H. 104, 649 P.2d 366.

No unlawful search where binoculars used only to confirm unaided observations into area where no reasonable expectation of privacy. 65 H. 152, 648 P.2d 194.

No reasonable expectation of privacy shown. 65 H. 159, 649 P.2d 737.

Warrantless body cavity search not justified under circumstances. 65 H. 488, 654 P.2d 355.

Expectation of privacy under circumstances was not one which society is prepared to recognize as legitimate. Strip search of prisoner was reasonable under circumstances. 66 H. 21, 656 P.2d 1330.

Checking an engine number located inside a vehicle constitutes a "search". 66 H. 202, 659 P.2d 70.

Police may conduct warrantless search of lost property to identify and safeguard it, protect police from false claims, or negate danger presented. A police inventory of lost and found property is a search. 67 H. 107, 678 P.2d 1088.

Use of dog to sniff all packages in cargo room was reasonable in light of balance of interests. Prior suspicion of particular package not absolute prerequisite to use of dog to sniff for drugs. 67 H. 168, 681 P.2d 980.

Protective weapons search; scope of, when justified. 67 H. 181, 683 P.2d 822.

Warrantless search of probationer's person, property, or residence; when justified. 67 H. 268, 686 P.2d 1379.

Ordering driver out of car and to take sobriety test was reasonable seizure. Flashlight-aided inspection of vehicle's interior to confirm unaided observation of object in open view, not a search. 67 H. 293, 687 P.2d 544.

Circumstances, including anonymous tip, did not warrant search of car. 67 H. 535, 696 P.2d 346.

Any co-inhabitant of commonly held property has right to consent to search of property; no expectation of privacy in property abandoned; abandonment primarily a question of intent. 67 H. 644, 701 P.2d 171.

Extraction of cigarettes from purse at defendant's request not a search; if search, consent given; warrantless seizure as valid protective measure incident to lawful arrest. 67 H. 650, 701 P.2d 1277.

Based on record, no consent to search; legitimate expectation of privacy in area searched; warrantless seizure; exigent circumstances lacking. 68 H. 32, 703 P.2d 680.

Stopping automobile for a brief period during traffic stop is a "seizure". 68 H. 184, 706 P.2d 1305.

Warrant to install beeper not excused by difficulty in satisfying particularity requirement; sufficient basis for warrant. 68 H. 213, 708 P.2d 820.

Reasonable expectation of privacy in closed public toilet stall; no probable cause to search stall. 68 H. 404, 716 P.2d 493.

No reasonable expectation of privacy in defendant's yard where defendant made no attempts to screen neighbor's view, construct or maintain a fence. 69 H. 534, 750 P.2d 932.

Per se reasonable for arresting officer to conduct a warrantless, limited pat-down search. 70 H. 107, 762 P.2d 803.

Search warrant was valid although informant had no history of reliability because other corroborated information indicated informant was reliable. 70 H. 271, 768 P.2d 1290.

Constitutional right was not voluntarily waived by defendant's consent to search car where waiver was predicated on prior illegal search and State failed to meet burden of showing that taint of illegal search had been dissipated or that there was an independent source inducing defendant to waive right. 72 H. 505, 824 P.2d 833.

Although no force was used, officers' show of authority and questioning constituted seizure under Hawaii Constitution. 74 H. 161, 840 P.2d 358.

Traffic stop was justified; police officer was permitted to invite appellant to exit appellant's vehicle for further investigation. 75 H. 1, 856 P.2d 1207.

Children in school have legitimate expectations of privacy that are protected by article I, §7 of Hawai`i constitution and the Fourth Amendment. 77 H. 435, 887 P.2d 645.

High school principal's search of student's purse was lawfully conducted. 77 H. 435, 887 P.2d 645.

Where handgun on floor of defendant's truck under corner of driver's seat was observed in plain view, presence of exigent circumstances was not required to justify a warrantless seizure. 78 H. 308, 893 P.2d 159.

Detective's entrance into defendants' home, whatever the purpose, over six hours after everyone had left was a "search" in the constitutional sense. 78 H. 433, 896 P.2d 889.

Clear plastic packets not "closed" containers as contents were within plain view of officer conducting search under warrant; defendant thus could not claim any reasonable expectation of privacy in the packets' contents. 80 H. 382, 910 P.2d 695.

Obtaining warrant as precondition to testing suspected cocaine in clear plastic bags unnecessary where defendant could not have reasonable expectation of privacy in clear plastic bags. 80 H. 382, 910 P.2d 695.

Valid search incident to lawful arrest where there was probable cause to make an arrest prior to and independent of search of defendant's pants, search was limited to finding narcotics bindles, and arrest was made immediately after search. 80 H. 419, 910 P.2d 732.

As Hawaii constitution provides greater protection for Hawaii's citizens, determination of probable cause for issuance of search warrant warrants de novo review on appeal. 81 H. 113, 913 P.2d 39.

Defendant lacked standing to challenge seizure of search warrant evidence where evidence seizure did not violate defendant's personal rights; defendant was not owner of any of items seized and did not allege any reasonable expectation of privacy in items. 82 H. 474, 923 P.2d 891.

No "seizure" where private individual, acting on own initiative, secured videotape and voluntarily transferred possession to police. 82 H. 474, 923 P.2d 891.

Drug evidence admissible and wrongly suppressed where police intrusion into hotel room pursuant to valid arrest warrant was justified and evidence seizure was permissible under plain view doctrine. 83 H. 13, 924 P.2d 181.

"Totality of the circumstances test" correct test to determine whether private individual's search and seizure of evidentiary items was as a government agent, and subjective motivation of individual irrelevant to this determination. 83 H. 124, 925 P.2d 294.

Warrantless seizure justified where witness' identification of defendant as person who terrorized witness with gun gave officers probable cause to believe defendant committed a crime and officer's observation of defendant sleeping with gun in immediate reach presented sufficient exigent circumstances for officer to board boat and seize gun. 83 H. 229, 925 P.2d 797.

Officer lacked specific and articulable facts sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in believing that defendant was engaged in criminal activity; officer was thus unjustified in initiating investigative "encounter" at airport with defendant. 83 H. 250, 925 P.2d 818.

Where nothing in objective facts available to police at time they obtained search warrant for house suggested defendant's bedroom was separate residential unit completely secured against access by other dwelling occupants, search warrant not overbroad and search of bedroom reasonable. 84 H. 462, 935 P.2d 1007.

Police may not prolong the detention of individuals subjected to brief, temporary investigative stops, once such stops have failed to substantiate the reasonable suspicion that initially justified them, solely for the purpose of performing a check for outstanding warrants. 91 H. 80, 979 P.2d 1106.

Officer's warrantless seizure of pouch containing handgun was justified based on exigent circumstances where, based on totality of the circumstances, including dark and deserted nature of area of traffic stop, truck occupants' unusual degree of movement in truck and refusal to obey officer's order to stay in truck, officer reasonably believed that occupants of truck posed a danger to officer. 93 H. 87, 997 P.2d 13.

When an airline passenger consents to a search of his or her effects at an airport security checkpoint, the scope of the search reasonably extends to those receptacles, the contents of which cannot be identified, contained in luggage. 97 H. 71, 34 P.3d 1.

A mandatory blood test, pursuant to §286-163, absent an arrest, violates neither this Amendment nor article I, §7 of the Hawaii constitution, so long as the police have probable cause to believe that the driver has committed one of the enumerated offenses and that the driver's blood contains evidence of intoxication or drug influence, exigent circumstances excuse a warrant, and the test is performed in a reasonable manner. 98 H. 221, 47 P.3d 336.

Assuming arguendo that, because drug detection dog jumped into the truck's passenger compartment, this canine screening constituted a "search" within the meaning of either this Amendment or article I, §7 of the Hawaii constitution, defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the truck (or specifically in the airspace within the cab of the truck); thus, neither the dog's nor police handler's conduct violated defendant's rights. 98 H. 426, 49 P.3d 1227.

In detaining defendant for the purpose of determining if defendant was impaired and if defendant would consent to a search of defendant's vehicle, officer did not exceed the scope of a temporary investigative stop premised upon circumstances that gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that defendant was driving while impaired or that defendant's vehicle might contain illicit substances. 99 H. 370, 56 P.3d 138.

Based on the totality of the circumstances, pool hall owner's actions in searching and detaining defendant were as a private citizen, not as a government agent; thus, owner's search and/or seizure of defendant was not constrained by this Amendment nor article I, §7 of the Hawaii constitution. 100 H. 195, 58 P.3d 1242.

Section 803-37 does not apply to the interior office door of a store; however, as an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy exists at the interior office door of a store, police are required to provide reasonable notification of their presence and authority before making a forced entry; police satisfied this requirement by knocking three times, announcing "police department, search warrant", and waiting fifteen seconds before forcibly entering the locked interior office door of the store. 100 H. 210, 58 P.3d 1257.

Lack of "exigent circumstances" necessary to justify exception to search warrant requirement. 1 H. App. 3, 612 P.2d 119.

Failure to show that arresting officer knew that person providing information was an eyewitness results in lack of proof of probable cause. 1 H. App. 60, 613 P.2d 909.

Probable cause required before person can be detained for custodial interrogation. 1 H. App. 60, 613 P.2d 909.

Affidavit in support of search warrant was adequate. 2 H. App. 606, 638 P.2d 338.

Search or seizure need not be preceded by arrest in order to be "incident to" lawful arrest; conditions. Seizure valid under "plain feel" rule. 4 H. App. 143, 662 P.2d 517.

Search of receptacles on premises; seizure of property; when within scope of warrant. 5 H. App. 547, 705 P.2d 54.

Unconstitutional search of backpack where officer had exclusive control of backpack. 7 H. App. 261, 752 P.2d 598.

Suspicionless drug testing of firefighters by urinalysis in conjunction with annual physical examination is not an unreasonable search. 8 H. App. 571, 816 P.2d 306.

Officer's order for defendant to exit vehicle was unlawful; thus, subsequent plain view of, search for, and seizure of incriminating evidence was tainted and should have been suppressed. 80 H. 75 (App.), 905 P.2d 50.

Probable cause existed for issuance of warrant based on officer's affidavit that relied on police investigation as well as on informant's information. 81 H. 29 (App.), 911 P.2d 1101.

Where warrant only authorized search of specific room of business and another subsequently discovered room of business separated by a hallway and other numbered and unnumbered rooms was also searched, other room was not within scope of warrant and constituted illegal search. 82 H. 162 (App.), 920 P.2d 376.

Evidence found in defendant's living room illegally seized where no exigent circumstances or search warrant to enter living room and person consenting to police entering living room did not have "actual authority" to consent. 82 H. 394 (App.), 922 P.2d 1007.

Where private individual was not informed by police of discretionary nature of warrant issuing process and consequently assisted police by searching son's bedroom for evidence, individual became agent of police and individual's actions constituted improper warrantless search by government. 83 H. 209 (App.), 925 P.2d 379.

Where police had probable cause to arrest defendant without a warrant for fourth degree theft, a petty misdemeanor under §708-833, and simple trespass, a violation under §708-815, and §803-6 authorized them to cite, rather than arrest, defendant for those offenses if defendant did not have any outstanding arrest warrants, outstanding warrant check on defendant by police not unconstitutional. 91 H. 111 (App.), 979 P.2d 1137.

Right not violated where defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy on busy public street, defendant took no precautions to insure privacy by screening defendant's presence or defendant's drug dealing activity from public view, and no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy for persons, objects, or activities which were visible to the public and captured by non-intrusive video camera. 92 H. 454 (App.), 992 P.2d 723.

Feeling of the contents of defendant's fanny bag through its cover by officer was an intentional warrantless search of the interior of the fanny bag. 93 H. 314 (App.), 2 P.3d 718.

Defendant had a constitutionally protected expectation of privacy not only in the general premises of the house, but also in the specific area that was defendant's bedroom; defendant's lack of property interest in defendant's parents' house was not a bar to a claim that defendant had a protected privacy interest in that house. 96 H. 472 (App.), 32 P.3d 116.

Exigent circumstances did not exist to justify warrantless police entry into and search of house, where, by securing the house believed to hold their quarry, the police had eliminated the perceived threat posed by a free-roaming, allegedly armed suspect, and by closing off the street, the police were in control of the situation, thus having sufficient time to consider their options, plan and obtain a search warrant. 96 H. 472 (App.), 32 P.3d 116.

Where defendant exhibited an actual, subjective expectation of privacy in defendant's bedroom by keeping door locked at all times, and no other person had the key or access to the room, and as an adult child living with parents is not uncommon in this State, defendant's expectation was one that society was prepared to recognize as objectively "reasonable"; thus, defendant's privacy interests in common areas of parents' house and in defendant's bedroom were constitutionally protected. 96 H. 472 (App.), 32 P.3d 116.

The federal and state regulatory schemes, which establish security and screening procedures at airports governed by both the Federal Aviation Administration and the state department of transportation, made private security employee's search of passenger's toolbox a governmental search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment and article I, §7 of the Hawaii constitution. 97 H. 77 (App.), 34 P.3d 7.

Warrantless search of passenger's toolbox at airport by private security company employee was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and article I, §7 of the Hawaii constitution. 97 H. 77 (App.), 34 P.3d 7.

Where totality of circumstances clearly showed that store asset protection agent conducted a purely private search of defendant with no governmental involvement, trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence. 97 H. 247 (App.), 35 P.3d 764.

Right not violated where police officer's search of defendant's fanny pack found by hotel guest and already inventoried by hotel security fell under the lost property inventory exception to the warrant requirement. 101 H. 112 (App.), 63 P.3d 420.

Cited: 56 H. 366, 537 P.2d 8.

Use of black light to detect presence of substance was a permissible search incident to arrest. 860 F.2d 911.

Contemporaneous arrest of defendant of search of automobile, discussed. 867 F.2d 561.

Defendant did not have any reasonable expectation of privacy once police opened address book. 871 F.2d 1497.

Search not unreasonable where, after defendant was handcuffed and seated in hallway, black bag within defendant's control was searched within three minutes of defendant's arrest. 3 F.3d 1239.

Search of defendant's handbag in vehicle valid where search made contemporaneous to arrest. 800 F. Supp. 892.

Search without warrant after a lawful arrest is not constitutionally interdicted. 45 H. 295, 367 P.2d 499.

Validity of search incidental to arrest as dependent upon probable cause for the arrest, whether probable cause may be based on hearsay. 50 H. 138, 433 P.2d 593.

In making search of handbag incidental to lawful arrest for being present at gambling game, officers may seize marijuana cigarettes though the evidence is of a different crime. 50 H. 275, 439 P.2d 212.

Search of automobile without warrant incident to arrest upon probable cause. 52 H. 226, 473 P.2d 567.

Warrantless search not made pursuant to valid arrest. 65 H. 104, 649 P.2d 366.

Arrest of defendants sunbathing nude on public beach did not violate their right of privacy. 52 H. 336, 475 P.2d 684.

Not violated by use by police of a ruse to effect the voluntary opening of a door and the subsequent entry without use of force for purpose of executing a lawful arrest warrant. 83 H. 13, 924 P.2d 181.

Person entrusted with photos by co-owner had authority to consent to police examination of them. 575 F.2d 209.

"Voluntariness" of consent to search is a factual question to be determined from the totality of the circumstances. 577 F.2d 473.

Court agreed with district court's reasoning rejecting contentions that, inter alia, consent to undercover agents' entry into home was vitiated when, in response to direct question, they denied that they were police officers, and that warrantless entry of additional uniformed officers was unlawful and therefore invalidated subsequent consent to search. 103 F.3d 1475.

Not violated where homeowner voluntarily consented to search for marijuana even if co-owner's later consent was involuntary. 779 F. Supp. 1272.

Entry and search of hotel room was nonconsensual where government agents threatened to break door down and were observed with weapons drawn. 803 F. Supp. 352.

Defendant's consent to search and waiver of search warrant was voluntary; scope of consent was not exceeded. 894 F. Supp. 1384.

Authority of defendant's wife to consent to search and seizure considered. 45 H. 622, 372 P.2d 365.

Right to privacy is a personal right that can be waived by possessor only. 51 H. 62, 451 P.2d 257.

To be valid, consent to warrantless search must be voluntary. 55 H. 442, 521 P.2d 376.

Determination of voluntariness of consent. 58 H. 462, 571 P.2d 745.

Consent implied where visitor applies for admission to prison with knowledge of practice of strip search. 59 H. 366, 580 P.2d 1282.

Question raised but not decided. 63 H. 95, 621 P.2d 374.

Consent to search was given under duress. X-ray should have been conducted as least intrusive means of conducting body cavity search. 65 H. 601, 655 P.2d 864.

No showing of voluntary consent by defendant to search car. 67 H. 126, 681 P.2d 553.

Babysitter did not have authority to consent to search of suspect's room. 67 H. 496, 692 P.2d 1156.

Finding that defendant not coerced by police officers and voluntarily consented to search of defendant's truck not clearly erroneous. 81 H. 358, 917 P.2d 370.

Evidence found in defendant's living room illegally seized where no exigent circumstances or search warrant to enter living room and person consenting to police entering living room did not have "actual authority" to consent. 82 H. 394 (App.), 922 P.2d 1007.

Warrantless search of defendant's bedroom in defendant's parents' house unreasonable where mother did not have actual authority to consent to search of son's bedroom; son had, by implicit agreement and in practice, exclusive possession of bedroom, and there was no indication that son gave mother access to room or permission to allow others access. 96 H. 472 (App.), 32 P.3d 116.

For police officers to conduct valid stop and frisk, they must have observed conduct or have reliable information causing them to believe that criminal activity is afoot and that the person is armed and dangerous. 53 H. 593, 499 P.2d 657.

Sufficiency of informer's tip. 55 H. 601, 525 P.2d 580.

Self-protective search for weapons. 56 H. 374, 537 P.2d 14; 59 H. 305, 580 P.2d 847.

Investigatory stop, when justifiable. 58 H. 333, 568 P.2d 1207.

Scope of search incident to investigative stop. 58 H. 333, 568 P.2d 1207.

Was not improper under the circumstances. 61 H. 566, 606 P.2d 1329.

Basic guidelines. 62 H. 59, 610 P.2d 502.

Where valid investigative stop has been made, police may not order person to leave vehicle or conduct protective search unless specific conduct of defendant, reliable information or attendant circumstances indicate person is armed and dangerous. 62 H. 453, 617 P.2d 76; 62 H. 459, 617 P.2d 565.

Where informant's tip is specific as to time and place, firearms are involved, and police observations verify information received, investigatory stop is authorized. 62 H. 464, 616 P.2d 1374.

When justified; sufficiency of informer's tip. 63 H. 160, 622 P.2d 122.

Investigatory stop justified by circumstances. 63 H. 488, 630 P.2d 619.

Justified. 63 H. 553, 632 P.2d 1064.

Standard of review for search for concealed weapon. 64 H. 376, 641 P.2d 979.

Investigatory stop not justified by informers tip. 65 H. 261, 650 P.2d 1358.