 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Harada2/25/2002
sly demanded entry into the residence to execute the search warrant. In addition to securing Harada, after entering the apartment, the officers secured co-defendants Aoki and Save in the living room. The officers also secured another male, Karl Koja, after he ran from the living room into the bathroom, and a woman, Tok Kwon, in the living room.
After securing the residence, the officers conducted a search and discovered three ziplock bags of methamphetamine and various drug paraphernalia. At the time of the warrant's execution, with the exception of Harada, the other four persons were seen within approximately five feet of the seized contraband.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court orally granted Harada's motion to suppress and subsequently entered the following pertinent Findings of Fact (FOF) and Conclusions of Law (COL):
FINDINGS OF FACT . . . .
4. The Narcotics/Vice officers determined that a "ruse" should be used and had two plain-clothes female police officers approach the door, knock and call out, "Kenny." The officers executing the search were out of sight of the peephole in the door.
5. As soon as the female officers saw the door handle begin to move, they jumped aside to allow the search team access. . . .
6. [Harada] opened the door several inches and then Officer Bermudes and the rest of the search team entered the apartment a few seconds after, some members of the Search team yelled, "Police! Search Warrant!"
7. While [Harada] attempted to shut the door, Officer Bermudes, who was the first officer in line at the door, used his arm and body to completely open the door to allow entry. He yelled, "Police! Search Warrant! Get on the ground," after the door started opening.
9. No one demanded to be allowed to enter the apartment.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
3. The use of a ruse by the police is legal and appropriate. The ruse in this case failed only because of the method and timing of the actual entry of the uniformed officers.
6. Dixon's cite [(referring to State v. Dixon, 83 Hawaii 13, 924 P.2d 181 (1996))] to Dickey v. United States, 332 F.2d 773 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 948, 85 S.Ct. 444, 13 L.Ed.2d 545 (1964), that " ad the officers obtained, by ruse, a partial opening of Dickey's door, and if they had then forced open the door the rest of the way to gain entrance, this would have been a breaking . . ." (Dixon, [83 Hawaii] at 19, citing Dickey, [332 F.2d] at 777-778), is applicable in the instant case to determine a breaking occurred.
8. The use of force to complete the opening of the door in the instant case rendered the ruse illegal under Dixon.
9. Concomitantly, the court finds there was no proper "knock and announce" under HRS ยง 803-37.
The prosecution timely appeals the trial court's order granting the defendants' motion to suppress.
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
We review a circuit court's findings of fact in a pretrial ruling according to the following standard:
Appellate review of factual determinations made by the trial court deciding pretrial motions in a criminal case is governed by the clearly erroneous standard. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when (1) the record lacks substantial evidence to support the finding, or (2) despite substantial evidence in support of the finding, the appellate court is nonetheless left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. State v. Okumura, 78 Hawaii 383, 392, 894 P.2d 80, 89 (1995) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
"The circuit court's conclusions o
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Hawaii Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|