 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Kim12/23/1985
OPINION OF THE COURT BY HAYASHI, J.
Defendant-Appellant Randall W. Kim (hereinafter "Kim") appeals convictions for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (hereinafter "HRS") § 291-4(a)(1) (Supp. 1984) and for refusing to submit to a breath or blood test in violation of HRS § 286-155 (Supp. 1984). The sole issue on appeal is whether the police illegally obtained incriminating evidence in violation of Kim's rights under article I, section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution
when a police officer ordered Kim out of his car after a traffic stop without probable cause or an articulable basis to believe a crime had been committed. Based on a review of the record and relevant caselaw, we conclude the police action was unconstitutional. Therefore, the judgments of conviction are reversed for the reasons stated below.
I.
In the late evening hours of December 24, 1984, Honolulu Police Department Officer Boyd observed Kim's car make a right turn from Hotel Street onto River Street through a red light, without first stopping or signalling his intention to make a right turn. Officer Boyd then stopped Kim's car, requested Kim's license, asked Kim to step out of the car, and stated the reason for the traffic stop. While talking with Kim, Officer Boyd noticed that Kim's eyes were red and glassy, Kim appeared unsteady on his feet, and Kim's breath smelled of alcohol.
Kim failed a sobriety test administered by Officer Boyd. Officer Boyd then arrested Kim for violating HRS § 291-4(1)(a). At the police station, Kim refused to submit to an Intoxilyzer test to determine his blood alcohol level and was arrested for violating HRS § 286-155.
On the day of trial, Kim moved to suppress all evidence obtained after Officer Boyd ordered him out of the car. Kim asserted Officer Boyd illegally ordered him out of the car without any reasonable basis to suspect he had committed a crime. Kim argued that a traffic stop, of itself, does not give the police the authority to order a person out of a car under State v. Wyatt, 67 Haw. 293, 687 P.2d 544 (1984). Kim claimed he had been subjected to an unreasonable seizure.
The trial court denied the motion to suppress, and the following conclusions of law were entered onto the record:
3. Although Officer Boyd did not detect the odor of alcohol on the Defendant's breath or notice his glassy eyes and unsteadiness until after the Defendant exited his vehicle pursuant to the Officer's request, the valid stop in itself was sufficient reason under State v. Wyatt to justify the actions of Officer Boyd in having the Defendant alight from his vehicle.
4. Although this Court acknowledges footnote 9 of State v. Wyatt, which appears to stand for the proposition that a mere traffic stop, without more, is insufficient justification for having a driver alight from his car, this Court nevertheless concludes that such purported authority is not binding on this Court.
5. The reason for such a conclusion is that footnote 9 is mere dictum, not a holding.
6. Therefore, this Court concludes that the actions of Officer Boyd were constitutionally justified.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 3-4 (emphasis in original).
The trial court later convicted Kim on both courts, and he filed a timely appeal.
II.
In foo
Page 1 2 3 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|