 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hauge11/18/2003
and manifest abuse of discretion are arbitrary or capricious action by the judge and a rigid refusal to consider the defendant's contentions." Fry, 61 Haw. at 231, 602 P.2d at 17. And, "' enerally, to constitute an abuse it must appear that the court clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant.'" Keawe, 79 Hawaii at 284, 901 P.2d at 484 (quoting Gaylord, 78 Hawaii at 144, 890 P.2d at 1184 (quoting Kumukau, 71 Haw. at 227-28, 787 P.2d at 688)).
State v. Rauch, 94 Hawaii 315, 322, 13 P.3d 324, 331 (2000) (brackets and ellipsis points in original).
IV. DISCUSSION
A. The Circuit Court Correctly Denied Hauge's Motion to Suppress The DNA Evidence Because Hauge Had No Privacy Interest In The Lawfully Obtained Blood Sample and The DNA Profile Procured Therefrom
The circuit court's denial of Hauge's motion to suppress the DNA evidence was correct, inasmuch as Hauge's privacy interest in his blood and hair terminated at the time the sample was obtained pursuant to a lawful search and seizure. As a preliminary matter, as discussed supra in section II.A, we note that the circuit court's FOFs and COLs regarding Hauge's motion to suppress were orally announced only. It is well established that this court may address points of error based upon oral FOFs and COLs. See State v. Kahoonei, 83 Hawaii 124, 925 P.2d 294 (1996) (addressing points of error on appeal concerning the motions court's oral denial of the defendant's motion to suppress).
On appeal, Hauge argues that
he police use of blood sample for DNA analysis and comparison in the burglary investigation exceeded the limited, authorized purpose for which the search warrant was issued, the investigation of the robbery case, and violated legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy under Article , section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution.
Although Hauge relies in part on the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures," he asserts that "this court has not hesitated to accord greater protection to its citizens under the provisions of the Hawaii Constitution [(i.e., article I, section 7)] than those afforded citizens under the federal constitution . . . ." In support of his assertion, Hauge cites State v. Endo, 83 Hawaii 87, 93, 924 P.2d 581, 587 (1996), which held that article I, section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution "'requires that governmental intrusion into the personal privacy of citizens of this State be no greater in intensity than absolutely necessary.'" Id. (citations omitted; emphasis in original.) Moreover, Hauge contends that, notwithstanding that the blood sample was lawfully obtained in a prior case, the use of the sample "in any future police investigation without guidelines or restrictions undermines the necessity for the probable cause requirement." Hauge further posits that " aw enforcement could gather a DNA databank of its citizens which the government could utilize to obtain genetic information far more intrusive than fingerprint comparisons." On these bases, Hauge argues that he was "entitled to judicial review of a law enforcement application to the court for permission to conduct additional DNA tests on his blood sample."
In response, the prosecution argues that the weight of authority in other jurisdictions supports the principle that, once a blood sample is lawfully obtained, a defendant no longer has a possessory or privacy interest in the blood that warrants federal or state constitutional protection. The prosecution suggests
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|