State v. Bohannon8/21/2003
witnessed other actions that would have led a reasonable person to believe that [Bohannon] was a hazard to the public, perhaps[, under the] public safety justification[,] [Officer Kashimoto] could [have] stopped [Bohannon]. But what we have here is such a brief observation that . . . these facts could not lead a reasonable person to believe [that] there was reasonable concerns for public safety or that this vehicle was being driven . . . unsafe or [in an] imprudent manner.
On these facts, the Court finds that a man of reasonable caution . . . would not be warranted in believing that criminal activity was afoot and the action taken was appropriate. The stop of [Bohannon] was not based on reasonable suspicion. The stop was improper. Reconsideration denied.
It appears that, on the same day, the district court clerk recorded the foregoing disposition on the traffic calender, the notation stating in relevant part as follows:
HRG ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SUPPRESS ITEMS HAD . . . . MOTION DENIED BY THE COURT.
On December 11, 2000, the district court clerk file-stamped a written order denying the prosecution's motion for reconsideration, although the order reflects that Judge Devens signed it on January 22, 2001. On January 25, 2001, the district court clerk file-stamped a written order granting Bohannon's motion to suppress, although the order reflects that Judge Devens signed it on January 31, 2001. On February 15, 2001, the prosecution filed a notice of appeal. Oral argument in the present matter was conducted on September 4, 2002.
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
A. Jurisdiction
"The existence of jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo under the right/wrong standard." Amantiad v. Odum, 90 Hawaii 152, 158, 977 P.2d 160, 166 (1999) (quoting Lester v. Rapp, 85 Hawaii 238, 241, 942 P.2d 502, 505 (1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Regarding appellate jurisdiction, this court has noted,
urisdiction is "the base requirement for any court resolving a dispute because without jurisdiction, the court has no authority to consider the case." Housing Finance & Dev. Corp. v. Castle, 79 Hawaii 64, 76, 898 P.2d 576, 588 (1995). With regard to appeals, " he remedy by appeal is not a common law right and exists only by virtue of statutory or constitutional provision." In re Sprinkle & Chow Liquor License, 40 Haw. 485, 491 (1954). Therefore, "the right of appeal is limited as provided by the legislature and compliance with the methods and procedure prescribed by it is obligatory." In re Tax Appeal of Lower Mapunapuna Tenants' Ass'n, 73 Haw. 63, 69, 828 P.2d 263, 266 (1992).
TSA Int'l Ltd. v. Shimizu Corp., 92 Hawaii 243, 265, 990 P.2d 713, 735 (1999).
State v. Adam, 97 Hawaii 475, 481, 40 P.3d 877, 883 (2002).
B. Motions To Suppress
"We answer questions of constitutional law by exercising our own independent judgment based on the facts of the case. . . . Thus, we review questions of constitutional law under the 'right/wrong' standard." State v. Jenkins, 93 Hawaii 87, 100, 997 P.2d 13, 26 (2000) (citations, some quotation signals, and some ellipsis points omitted). Accordingly, " e review the circuit court's ruling on a motion to suppress de novo to determine whether the ruling was 'right' or 'wrong.'" Id. (citations and some quotation signals omitted).
State v. Locquiao, 100 Hawaii 195, 203, 58 P.3d 1242, 1250 (2002) (quoting State v. Poaipuni, 98 Hawaii 387, 392, 49 P.3d 353, 358 (2002)).
C. Statutory Interpretation
" he interpretation of a statute . . . is a question of law review
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|