 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Harada2/25/2002
9 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991) (holding that police acted unreasonably by using a ruse to encourage the opening of a door and thereafter "announcing their authority and purpose simultaneously with their entry" as they "forced their way" into the residence; and explaining that " alancing the benefits of deterring police misconduct against the cost of excluding otherwise reliable evidence" resulted in the determination that the evidence recovered during the warrant execution should have been suppressed); State v. Ellis, 584 P.2d 428 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978) (holding that, absent exigent circumstances, "where a ruse is unsuccessfully employed in an attempt to gain entry, the 'knock and wait' rule must be observed [and that t]he officer must announce his [or her] true identity and purpose and be refused admission before he [or she] may enter by force").
The requirements of HRS § 803-37 have nothing to do with the use of force, once entry of any degree has been made. As Justice Ramil points out in his dissenting opinion, the pronouncements mandated are a prerequisite to entry. By their terms, such pronouncements are intended to notify the occupants of an impending intrusion and to afford the occupants the opportunity to open the door, seeGarcia,77 Hawaii at 468, 887 P.2d at 678; hence, the requirement that the officer must first " demand entrance," id. at 466, 887 P.2d at 676 (emphasis added), when the door is shut.
Once entry of any degree is made in a ruse, the interests sought to be protected by such pronouncements are dissipated and are no longer served by a post-entry rendition of HRS § 803-37 announcements. With all due respect, the holding in this case is a perverse application of the statutory knock and announce requirements which were intended not to legitimize ruses gone awry, but to condition government intrusion in the first place.
IX.
It should be evident from the foregoing that an issue of constitutional dimension as to HRS §§ 803-11 and -37 is posed only if their application runs afoul of a constitutional prohibition. SeeGarcia, 77 Hawaii at 467, 887 P.2d at 677 (holding that HRS § 803-37 "violates the Hawaii Constitution to the extent that it permits the police to break into the place to be searched if 'bars' to their entrance are not immediately opened."). Otherwise, applying canons of statutory construction, they must be applied as written.
Of course, higher standards may be imposed by the legislature pursuant to statute, than under a constitutional provision. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on the Museum of Modern Art, 719 N.E.2d 897,903-04 (N.Y. 1999) (determining that a state statute prohibiting seizures of art on loan to museums was applicable to a grand jury subpoena and did not implicate the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirements, because the statute was "broader than the constitutional concerns of unreasonable seizures[, and, t]hus, although the subpoena may pass constitutional muster, the statute stands in its way"). Therefore, when a legislature enacts a statute that provides more protection than does a constitution, the court is bound to construe the statute, as written, as the constitution is no longer implicated. See id. (stating that interpretation of a statute providing broader protection than the federal and state constitution does not implicate those provisions, and " he analysis necessary to resolve this case is not of a constitutional dimension"). Because our knock and announce statutes do not offend either the federal or state constitutions, this court's duty is to adhere to the plain meaning of the statute, otherwise, we encroach on legislative authority. " either the courts nor the administrative agenc
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.
|
|