 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Reed10/21/1988
[70 Haw Page 108] Petitioner-Appellee State of Hawaii (State) seeks review of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) memorandum opinion reversing the convictions against Respondent-Appellant Mark Sidney Reed (Reed). The trial court had refused to suppress the incriminating evidence against Reed and had convicted him for the Illegal Possession of a Switchblade Knife plus the Third-Degree Promotion of the Harmful Drug Valium in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 134-52 (1985) and 712-1246 (1985), respectively. The ICA majority opinion had reversed ruling that the evidence had been illegally obtained by an overly broad
pat-down search. We disagree with the ICA majority decision and instead agree with the dissenting opinion of Judge Burns that 1) the switchblade knife was properly seized; but 2) further proceedings on remand are required to determine the legality of the Valium seizure.
I.
BACKGROUND FACTS
The facts are not disputed:
At approximately 4:20 a.m. on April 30, 1986, Honolulu police officer Michael DeAguiar (DeAguiar) saw Defendant apparently throw coffee on a woman standing on the sidewalk of Hotel Street. The woman then began "screaming" and swearing at Defendant. DeAguiar stopped Defendant and asked him why he had done what he did. Defendant gave no reason for his action and DeAguiar asked Defendant for identification. Upon receiving Defendant's identification, DeAguiar called the police station to see if any warrant was outstanding against Defendant. DeAguiar was informed there was a warrant for Defendant's arrest and he arrested Defendant. DeAguiar then patted Defendant down and recovered the switchblade knife and a plastic Tylenol bottle containing several pills which DeAguiar could see, without opening the bottle, were blue in color and imprinted with the letter "V" . At that time Defendant was arrested for possession of the knife. When Defendant was taken to the police station, DeAguiar compared the blue pills with pictures in a "Physician's Manual" and concluded that the pills were valium. Defendant was arrested on the drug charge. The pills were removed from the
bottle by DeAguiar without a search warrant, counted, and returned to the bottle. The pills were later analyzed by police chemists as valium.
Defendant's pre-trial motion to suppress the knife and the pills was denied. The parties then incorporated DeAguiar's and Defendant's suppression hearing testimony for purposes of trial, stipulated that the pills had been analyzed as valium, and submitted the case to the court to decide the substantive issues. The court found Defendant guilty on both counts and Defendant appealed.
State v. Reed , No. 12175, slip op. at 1-2 (Haw. App. Mar. 29, 1988) (mem.)(emphasis added).
On appeal, the ICA majority held that State failed to point to specific, articulable facts to justify the pat-down search by Honolulu Police Department Officer Michael DeAguiar (Officer DeAguiar). Id. at 3. Because the record did "not disclose the offense for which the [outstanding arrest] warrant was issued," the ICA majority explained that it could not "say that the offense for which [Reed] was arrested was one which, per se, would justify the 'pat-down' search." Id. at 4. Finally, the majority noted that:
DeAguiar did not testify to anything that caused him to believe that Defendant was armed, concealing fruits of crime on his person, or was attempting to escape. Defendant was cooperative at all times, and DeAguiar gave n
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|