 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bohannon8/21/2003
ther with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion." Terry v. Ohio, supra [392 U.S.], at 21. The ultimate test in these situations must be whether from these facts, measured by an objective standard, a man of reasonable caution would be warranted in believing that criminal activity was afoot and that the action taken was appropriate. 58 Haw. at 338, 568 P.2d at 1211 (citations omitted).
State v. Powell, 61 Haw. 316, 321-22, 603 P.2d 143, 147-48 (1979).
Id. (some brackets added and some omitted).
Measured by the foregoing standard, Officer Kashimoto's investigative stop of Bohannon was lawful. While we agree with Bohannon, as did Officer Kashimoto, that the "screeching of tires ," in and of itself, did not constitute an offense within the HRS and, therefore, could not, without more, provide the basis for the requisite reasonable suspicion to stop Bohannon, the officer's additional observations, considered in concert with the reasonable inferences arising from the "screeching of tires," warranted an objectively reasonable suspicion that Bohannon had, at a minimum, committed the offense of reckless driving of a vehicle, in violation of HRS § 291-2 (Supp. 1999). Despite the fact that Officer Kashimoto articulated his suspicion in terms of an apparent failure to drive "in a safe and prudent manner," the foregoing traffic statutes essentially embrace Officer Kashimoto's reasonable concerns at the time of the subject incident. Thus, viewing the present matter from the totality of the circumstances known to Officer Kashimoto at the time of the incident, we hold that his investigative stop of Bohannon was "within the parameters of permissible police conduct," Barnes, 58 Haw. at 337, 568 P.2d at 1211, and, consequently, that the district court erred in granting Bohannon's motions to suppress and to dismiss.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing discussion, we vacate the district court's order granting Bohannon's motions to suppress and to dismiss and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
CONCURRING OPINION BY INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS CHIEF JUDGE BURNS
I agree with the conclusion "that Officer Kashimoto had reasonable suspicion to stop Bohannon and, therefore, that the district court erred in granting Bohannon's motions to suppress and to dismiss."
Although I agree with the conclusion "that this court has jurisdiction to address the merits of the prosecution's appeal," I differ with the analysis stated by Justice Levinson.
Currently, the traffic calendar is a computer printout. Regarding each defendant whose case is being heard on that day, the printout contains all prior entries into the computer regarding past actions in the case. At each hearing, the court clerk writes or types on the traffic calendar, in the section pertaining to the defendant, the court's decision(s) in the defendant's case. This amended traffic calendar is not filed. Subsequently, often days later, this decision information is typed into the computer under the defendant's case number for the record and future retrieval.
The May 26, 2000 traffic calendar and the July 17, 2000 traffic calendar allegedly in the record on appeal are copies of printouts of the relevant pages of the traffic calendar after the information regarding the court's decisions on those days in those cases had been typed into the computer. I say "allegedly in the record on appeal" because, although these printout copies were transmitted by the district court to the appellate courts as part of the record on appeal, there is no indication they were ever "filed" in the district court. No
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|