Case Title: Carlisle v. One

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2008-06-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
*** FORPUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

PETER B. CARLISLE, in his official capacity:

the Prosecuting Attorney of the City and Couiiity

of Honolulu, on behalf of the State of Hawai'i,
Respondent /Petitioner-Appellant,

 

vs.
ONE (1) BOAT, 18.5 FEET WITH FIBERGLASS HULL,
REGISTRATION NO. HA 2709 D,

BLUE AND WHITE IN COLOR,
HULL IDENTIFICATION NO. GLA72495M77G, WITH TRAILER,
SERIAL NO, TUDOSLG94HDNAP, AND GAS ENGINE WITH
WINCH SYSTEM (BSTIMATED VALUE: $4,000.00); ONE (1)
EVINRUDE BRAND OUTBOARD ENGINE, 112 HORSEPOWER,
SERIAL NO. G04072044, AND ONE (1) EVINRUDE BRAND
"BOARD ENGINE, 30 HORSEPOWER, SERIAL NO. GO3586474
(ESTIMATED VALUE: $1,000.00); TWO (2) MONOFILAMENT GILL NETS,

oun:
EACH APPROXIMATELY 1500 FEET IN LENGTH (ESTIMATED
(AGGREGATE ESTIMATED VALUE $8,000.00),

Defendant,

 

VALUE: $3,000.00)
and

DANG VAN TRAN and SANG TRAN, Petitioners/Interested
Persons-Appellees.

 

NO. 26995
CERTIORARI 10 THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(8.P. NO. 1-1-0144)

NOVEMBER 17, 2008

MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, AND DUFFY, Jo
OPINION OF THE COURT BY MOON, C.J.
this court accepted a timely

2008,
filed by petitioners/

on dune 26,

application for a writ of certiorari
interested persons-appellees Dang Van Tran (Dang) and Sang Tran

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

(Sang) [hereinafter, collectively, the Trans) on May 27, 2008,
requesting this court review the Intermediate Court of Appeals’
(TCA) March 17, 2008 judgment on appeal, entered pursuant to its
published opinion in Carlisle v. One Boat. No. 26995 (Haw. Ct.
App. Feb. 27, 2008). Therein, the ICA vacated the Circuit Court
of the First Circuit’s: (1) February 1, 2002 order* granting the
Trans’ motion to dismiss the verified petition for forfeiture of
property filed by respondent /petitioner-appellant Peter Carlisle,
in his official capacity as the Prosecuting Attorney of the City
and County of Honolulu, on behalf of the State of Hawai‘i (the
State); (2) December 6, 2004 judgment entered in favor of the

‘trans

 

and (3) January 20, 2005 order granting in part and
denying in part the Trans’ motion to strike the judgment-or, in
the alternative, to amend the judgment to correct errors and
enter the judgment nunc pro tunc.? One Boat, slip op. at 27-28.
Oral argument was held on September 4, 2008.

Briefly stated, the events giving rise to the States
verified petition, seeking judicial forfeiture, centers around
the surveillance of fishing boats in waters off the Wai‘anae
coast by Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR)
officers. while on patrol, the officers observed individuals on
a boat, later determined to be owned by the Trans, pulling up a

‘The Honorable Reynaldo D. Graulty presided over the underlying
proceedings unless otherwise indicated.

+ the Honorable Marcia J, Waldorf presided over the Trana’ motion to

strike,

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

gill net. After boarding the Trans’ boat and conducting an
investigation, the DINR officers seized the boat and other items
based on an alleged illegal taking of stony coral, in violation
of Hawai'i Administrative Regulations (HAR) § 13-95-70 (1998),
quoted infra, and the illegal taking of live rocks, in violation
of HAR § 13-95-71 (1998), quoted infra, that were found in the
gill net. Ultimately, the circuit court -- on motion by the
Trans -- dismissed the State’s verified petition, finding that
(2) the state’s petition failed to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted and (2) the circuit court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction over the forfeiture claims. The circuit
court’s order of dismissal was filed on February 1, 2002;
however, no judgment was entered in the case until December 6,
2004 -- two years and ten months later, The State appealed, and
the ICA, as previously stated, vacated the circuit court’s
dismissal.

on application, the Trans’ contention of error is based

 

upon: (1) the ICA’s lack of appellate jurisdiction inasmuch as
s[the state] failed to timely perfect [its] right to appeal [the
cdxcuit court]’s ruling,” and (2) their assertion that the
circuit court correctly determined there was no specific
statutory authorization for the forfeiture claims of the state.
Based on the following discussion, we hold that,
although the ICA had jurisdiction to entertain the state's

appeal, it erred in vacating the circuit court's orders and

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

judgment inasmuch as the relevant statutes and administrative
regulations do not provide the required specific statutory
authorization for the State's forfeiture claims. Therefore, we
reverse the ICA’s March 17, 2008 judgment on appeal and affirm
the circuit court's February 1, 2002 order, Decenber 6, 2004
Judgment, and January 20, 2005 order.

1. BACKGROUND
A. Proceedings Before the Circuit Court

1. The State’s Verified Petition for Forfeiture

 

on March 29, 2001, the state filed a verified petition,
seeking forfeiture of property in which the Trans had an
interest, to wit: (1) one 18.5 foot fiberglass hull boat with
trailer, and gas engine with winch system (estimated value of
$4,000.00); (2) one Evinrude brand 112 horsepower outboard engine

and one Evinrude brand 30 horsepower outboard engine (estimated

 

value of $1,000.00); and (3) two monofilament gill nets
(estimated value of $3,000) hereinafter, collectively, the
property]. As indicated by the ICA, the State alleged the
following facts in its petition:

[Oln the night of October 14, 2000, at around
9:00 p.m., (DLNR], Divieion of Conservation and Resource
Enforcement (OOCARE) officers, while on patrol in a DOCARE
boat, observed two males in a brightly 1it vessel fishing
vith’a large gill net off the Waianae coast of the island
Sf O'ahu. During their surveillance, the officers witnessed
Kalani Baldarema (Baldarana) pulling up a gill net and Dang
Operating the vessel, The officers then proceeded to the
vessel. then the officers arrives, they saw Dang and
Baldarana pulling up a net without a diver in the water to
aeist in retrieval of the net

 

 

 

  

 
 

*** FOR PUBLICATION *
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

According to the DOCARE officers, once they arrived at
[the trans)" beat, they identified thenseives and stated
thelr invention to conduct an inspection of the boat, Two
(of the DOCARE officers boarded [the Trans)" boat while the
third officer Fenained alsagaide in the DOCARE boat, The
Cfticers told Dang and Baldarana to continue to retrieve the
fet and requested that they not remove any coral from che
Ret cr the best, as the officers needed to determine waother
the coral was alive.

‘The DOCARE officers stated that Dang became angry at
thie request end told the officers that if the net was
tangled he would send Ais diver down. The officers
Fesponded that @ diver should have been in the water to
prevent danage to the coral snd it was evident that coral
ESS aireaty been damaged and removed from the water. while
the net was in the process of being pulled in, Baldarana put
fon his scuba gear and descended to untangle the net and
Felease regulated fish,

‘te officers stated that{,] even with ‘Baidarana in the
water to untangle the net fren the bottom, the DOCARE
Sificers on [the Tranal’ boat witnessed several “large”
Pieces of live coral atuck in the net. According to the

Dang attenpted to throw back into the water sone
Sf the coral stuck in the net and becene “enraged when
Siticers prevented him from doing so. During this
Gneounter, the officers had to physically restrain Dang in
Shier co prevent iim from renoving the coral stuck in che
pet.

‘Shortly thereafter, Dang calmed dows, but began to
complain of chest pains and shortness of breath. the
Sfficers then escorted (che Trans!” boat to shore and
Siranged for an anbulance £0 pick up Dang to take him for
Ereatment. Shortly thereafter, Dang's son, Sang, arrived at
the harbor and notified the officers that he was the
Eagistered owier of the boat. The officers inforned Sang
Ghat the boat, the nets, a tvailer, the coral found in the
ets, and other itens lefe on the boat were being seized as
evidence.

‘The petition further alleged that under the forfeiture
provielona codified in. (Hawal't Revised Statutes (HRS)
Ghapter 7128, [the Trans)’ property was subject to seizure
and forfeiture because the offenses Dang allegedly
Conmitted, ‘intentional Taking of Live Coral,” in violation
Of THAR] § 13-95-70, (*] and *rntentional Taking of Live

 

 

 

 

 

 

> based upon the State's allegetions, it appears the DOCARE officers

reported that three pieces of coral were caught in the net; one piece was
throw back into the water by Dang, and two "large* pieces were retrieved by
the BOCARE officers and seized ag evidence.

 

4 HAR § 13-95-70 (1998) stated in relevant part:

Stony Corale. (a) The intentional taking, breaking,

or damaging with crowbar, chisel, or any other inplement of

Shy live stony coral of the taxononic order, Madreporeria,

fneluding the Fungidae of Poctlloporidae fanilies, is

prohibited except with a permit authorized under sections
(continued...)

 

a
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

Rock," in violation of HAR § 13-95-71, ['] were ‘covered
offenses” pursuant to HRS § 722A-4(a) {(Supp. 2000), quoted
Anta). the petition alleged that pursuant to MRS § 712A°5
{11993 and Supp. 2000), quoted intra]. probable cause
existed for the seizure and forfeiture of (the Trans)”
property as "it was used or intended for use, including
Without 1imteation, in the commission of, attenpe eo commit,
Gr conspiracy to comit a covered offense, or which
facilitated or assisted in auch activity (I

   

 

Qne Boat, slip op. at 3-4 (footnotes and original ellipsis
omitted). on June 4, 2001, the Trans timely filed an answer to
the State's petition, essentially denying the allegations in the
petition and asserting, among other defenses, a lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and the failure of the petition to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted, Additionally, on the
same day, the Trans filed a notice of claim, contending that the
property had been wrongfully seized and was not subject to
forfeiture.
2. ‘the Trans’ Motion to Dismiss

‘Thereafter, on November 30, 2001, the Trans filed a
notion to dismiss the verified petition, arguing that the
petition was subject to dismissal due to (1) a lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and (2) failure of the petition to state a

claim upon which relief could be granted.

 

“(..scontinsed)
TeS-d1 or 2878-6, URS, oF by section 13-74-65, oF as maybe
otherwise authorized by Law.

+ saR § 13-95-71 (1998) stated in relevant part:

Live Rocks. (a) The intentional taking, breaking, or

damaging vith crowbar, chisel, or any other implesent of any

york or coral to which marine life 1s visioly attached or

affixed is prohibited except with a permit authorized undes

Sections 183-4 or 187A~6, HRS, or by section 13-74-43, oF
thorized by Law

 

   

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

she relevant law

preliminarily, we first set forth the relevant statutes
relating to (1) HAR §§ 13-95-70 and 13-95-71 and (2) forfeiture
pursuant to Chapter 712A. Both regulations, see supra notes 4
and 5, were authorized and implemented pursuant to HRS § 187A-5
(1993), which provides that, *(s]ubject to [CIhapter 91, [DUNR]
shall adopt, amend, and repeal rules for and concerning the
protection and propagation of introduced and transplanted aquatic
life, or the conservation and allocation of the natural supply of
aquatic life in any area.” HRS § 187A-5 further provides that
‘{ajil rules shall have the force and effect of law. Any person
who violates any of the rules adopted pursuant to this section
shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor and upon conviction
thereof shall be punished as provided by section 188-70.”
(emphases added.) In turn, HRS § 188-70 (Supp. 2007) provides in
relevant part:

(a) any person violating any provision of this
chapter, or any rale adopted pursuant therato, is
guilty of & petty mledaneanor and, in addition to any other
penalties, shall be fines not less than:

(2)" $100 for a first offers

(2) $200 for @ second offense; and

(3) $500 for @ third or subsequent offence.

 

Under HRS § 712A-5(1), items subject to forfeiture
include *(b) Iplxoperty used or intended for use in the
commission of, attempt to conmit, or conspiracy to commit a

covered offense, or which facilitated or assisted such activity,

 

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

(Emphases added.) The phrase “covered offense" is defined in HRS
§ 712A-4 as follows:

covered offen:
subisct vo forfeiture under thie canoe es
(a) All offenses ubich specifically authorize forfeiture,
(b) Murder, ‘kidnapping, gambling, criminal property danage,
robbery, bribery, extortion, theft, unauthorized entry into
Rotor vehicle, burglary, nosey laundering, tradenark
counterfeiting, insurance fraud, proncting 8 dangerous,
harmful, or detrimental drug, or commercial pronation of
marijuana, which is chargeable as a felony offense under
State laws
(c) ‘The manufacture, sale, or distribution of a controlied
Substance in violation of chapter 329, promoting etrinental
Grugs or intoxicating compounds, proncting pornography.
Promoting pornography for minora, ar proneting prostitution,
'S chargeable as a felony or misdemeanor offense, but
petty msdeneanor, under aeace law; and
(a) “The atteapt, conspiracy, solicitation, coercion, or
intimidation of another to commit any offense for which
property ig subject to forfeiture.

 

 

 

      

(Bold emphasis in original.) (Underscored emphases added.)
b. the Trans’ motion and the circuit court's ruling
In substance, the Trans argued in their motion to
dismiss that the property was not subject to forfeiture because
the offenses charged against Dang were not **covered offenses
(that] specifically authorize[d] forfeiture’ as required by [HRS)
§ 712a-4.* The State opposed the Trans’ motion, contending that
“the only reasonable interpretation of [HRS c]hapter 712A
[(dealing with forfeiture)] and Title 12(*) . . . will lead [the
circuit court] to conclude that violations of [HAR §§] 13-95-70
and [13-95]-71 . . . constitute covered offenses under HRS
Iclhapter 712A." (Bold emphasis omitted.) In support of its

«title 12 deals with conservation and resource

§ 187a-5, which, as previously quoted, authorized pro
§5.13-95°70 and’ 13-95-71.

land contains HRS
sigation of HAR

 

 

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

position, the State pointed to HRS § 199-7 (Supp. 2000), which is
included in the “enforcenent" section of Title 12 and stated in
relevant part:

Search and seizure; forfeiture of property. (a) Any police
Slicer or agent of [SENR) upen whom the Board of land and
Eatural resources has conferred povars of police officers,
shall be ty to conduct searches on probable
Chuse as provided by law and to seize any equipment,
article, instrunent, aircraft, venict 2, business
Fecords, or natural resource ised or raken in vlolation of
the provisions contained in... title 12, or any rules
Adopted thereunder.

‘b) i ‘le, instrurent, aircraft,
vehicle, veisel, business records, or gatural resource
Eoized ie\subiect co forfeiture pursuant to chapter Tia,
Bagvany ites, ceher than a-natural resource, seized st
fe ordered forfeited to the State for disposition a
Gecermined by the department, or nay be destroyed, or may be
kept and retained and utilized by the departrent or any

£ not needed or required by 1
Separtment of other state agency, the forfeited
be disposed of as provided by chapter 712A.

 

      

 

  

 

a

   

     

S shall

(Emphases added.) Based on HRS § 199-7, the State asserted that
the Trans’ argunents that alleged violations of HAR §§ 13-95-70
and 13-95-71 were not "covered offenses’ within the meaning of
ERS 712A-4 would ‘render the statutory schemes of both Chapter
7228 and Title 12 superfluous and result in absurdity.
Additionally, the state argued that the legislative history
behind the enactment of, and amendments to, HRS § 199-7 indicated
that ‘it was [the] legislature’s clear intent to authorize DLNR’s

use of

 

et forfeiture as an additional remedy for Title 12

violations.”

 

In response to the State's arguments, the Trans
asserted that HRS § 199-7 was not ‘on its face" a ‘statute

setting forth an ‘offense,’ nor even an offense contemplated by

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

HRS § 712A-4(a)* but, instead, ‘only ‘empowers’ officers of
(DOCARE] to conduct searches on probable cause and to “seize”
property taken in violation of [T]itle 12, or any rules adopted
thereunder." As such, the Trans argued that HRS § 199-7

Iwas} insufficient to meet (HRS § J712A-4(a)‘s specific
Fequirenent that a covered offense, for purposes of
forfeiture, mist “specifically authorize forfeiture,” before
‘any property “seized” pursuant to (HRS) § 199-7(a) can be.
forfeited. Ia other words, if HAR S§ 13-95-70 and 13-95-71
are the alleged offenses in this case, then those
Administrative rules and/or their penalty provisions mst
“specifically authorize forfeiture’ in order for [the State)
co inatituce a forfeiture proceeding

 

fon December 19, 2001, a hearing was held on the Trans’
notion to dismiss, wherein the parties presented their above
positions, focusing -- at the request of the circuit court -- on
the parties’ differing interpretations of HRS § 199-7

‘Thereafter, the circuit court orally granted the Trans’ motion to

 

Gismiss. on February 1, 2002, the circuit court filed an order
consistent with its oral ruling, which also contained the
following conclusions of law (COL):

1. An Ldn (rien forfeiture proceeding under [HRS
cUhapter 712K... is a civil proceeding governed by the
Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure T(uhce) 1? therefore, the
Gefenses of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure
to state @ claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant
to (MRCP) [Rules 12(b) (1) and 12(B) (6), are
appropriate defenses £0 assert in a Chapter 72 {iin Lrlen
civil forfeiture proceeding;

2. Generally, forfeitures are not favored by the lew
fand should be enforced only when within both the letter and
spirit of the law. See Klinger v. Kepano, 64 Haw. 4, 9, 635
Pi2a 938, 942 (1981);

3.” [The State] alleged in [its pletition that seizure
for forfeiture and forfeiture in this case were proper
because the [Trans’] property relates to alleged covered
offenses under [HRS] § 712A~

te HRS § 712k-é(a)-(d) Liat the apecttic offenses for
which property is subject to forfeiture under SRS (clhapter
Es

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

-10-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

5. HRS § 712k-6(a) permits forfeiture for all
offenses “which specifically authorize forfeiture,
Stheretore, offenses on which a forfeiture action is based
under HRS § 712h-4(a) of the [HRS] must be offenses which
Sepecitically authorize forfeiture." HRS § 712A-4(D1~(@)
are not applicable to the present action;

6, the [pjetition asgerta an incentional taking under
aR 55°13-9570' and 13-95-71 as the two covered offenses
Upon which this forfeiture action is based:

ye HAR §§ 13-95-70 and 13-95-71 do not specifically
authorize forfeiture for # violation of these administrative
rules)

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. HAR § 13-95-2, the penalty provision for
violations of HAR [t]itie 13, [elubtitie ¢, [plart ¥,
Telhapter 98, does not specifically authorize forfeiture for
a violation of HAR §§ 13-95-70 and 13-95-71

3. URS §§ 487A-5, 187Ae12.5, 187A-13, 188-53, 188-70
and 1694 [{all of which relate to aquatic fesources and
Fishing righea)] do not specifically authorize forfeiture
for a viclation of the provisions of, ar rules adopted under
Has [elnaptere 187A, 166 or 189)

10 (ake State! argued that, based upon statutory
Snterpretation and construction of HRS (eJhapter 722A, HRS
{elisie 12 and HRS § 199-7, that. (sicl HAR §§ 13-95-70 and
15-95-72 are covered offenses which specifically authorize
the forfeiture proceedings in the (pleeition;

 

  

 

  

 

 

Ff Doure disaares 2)
isao ere Sind Te
he pene Sigtacton or th
ed = es =
Sey prow: specif: ze
Tiehed aly and 5-35-70 s
visions iy auehos f

Ta Since WAR $$ 15-95-70 and 23-95-71 are not
covered offenses for purposes of forfeiture proceedings
Gnder HRS § 712A, the (pletition fails to state a clain upon
whieh relief canbe granted, and
Subject matter Juriediction over the forfeiture clains in
the Ipletition.

 

  

 

 

(Emphasis added.) (Footnote omitted.)

 

‘The December 6, 2004 Judgment
After the issuance of the circuit court’s February 1,
2002 order dismissing the state's verified petition, no further
action was taken in the instant case until December 6, 2004, at

which time, a judgment -- prepared by the State -- was filed in

we
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

favor of the Trans and against the State. Thereafter, on
December 9, 2004, the State filed a notice of appeal. on
December 13, 2004, the Trans filed -- pursuant to HRCP Rule 60

(2007)

 

a motion to strike the judgment or, in the alternative,
to amend the judgment to correct errors and enter the judgment
nunc pre tunc, effective February 1, 2002 hereinafter, the
motion to strike the judgment]. Specifically, the Trans
requested that two typographical errors be corrected and,
essentially, argued that the State should be precluded from
appealing from the judgment inasmuch as the circuit court's
February 1, 2002 order of dismissal was *a final order which [the
State], under Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure [(HRAP)] Rule
4(a) (1) [(2002)], 7] . . . was required to challenge within 30
days after it was filed.*

‘The State opposed the Trans’ motion to strike the
judgment, arguing, inter alia, that the circuit court's February
1, 2002 order was not an appealable order because it “was
incomplete as it did not address (the Trans’) claims against (the
State] for attorneys fees and costs.”

A hearing was held on December 27, 2004," wherein the
parties argued their above stated positions. On January 20,

MRAP rule 4(a) (1) stated in relevant part: *(W)ben a civil appeal is
permitted by law, the notice of appeal shall be filed within 30 days after
entry of the judgment or appealable order

  

 

+ me Honorable Marcia J. waldorf presided over the hearing and all
remaining proceedings.

-12-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai‘i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

2005, the circuit court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the Trans’ motion to strike the judgment.
specifically, the circuit court granted the Trans’ request to
(2) correct one clerical or typographical error in the judgment
and (2) enter the judgment nunc pre tunc to February 1, 2002.
However, the circuit court, citing the ICA's decision in Stratis
w.Bacific Insurance Co., 8 Haw. App. 79, 82-83, 794 P.2d 1122,
1124-25 (1990), held that the nunc pro tung provision could not
be used to defeat the State’s right to appeal from the judgment
and the state’s time to appeal ran from the actual date of entry
of the circuit court’s order. The circuit court denied all other
relief requested by the Trans. The State filed a second notice
ef appeal on January 24, 2005, appealing from the circuit court's
(2) January 20, 2005 order and (2) December 6, 2004 judgment
B. Appeal Before the ICA

on direct appeal, the State argued that the ICA had
appellate jurisdiction because the State had timely filed its
notice of appeal from the circuit court's December 6, 2004
judgment. Additionally, the State contended that the circuit
court erred in granting the Trans’ motion to dismiss the petition
because

ItJhe language of [HRS subs]ections 199-7(a) and (b) clearly
provided for forfeiture under Chapter 7124 for violations of
Hele 12, whieh includes (HRS §) 299-7, and the
Sdninistrative rules promigated pursuant ro Title 12. It
{e"unquestionable that the offenses listed by (the State) as
SGowared offenses” are violations of sections of the HAR,
which vere promilgated pursuant to Title 12. Although the
Nords “covered offense” are not specifically included in

 

     

 

a3.
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

[aRS §) 199-7 it de evident that the forfeiture procedures
of Chapter 712A have been incorporated into Titie 12 by
Fepeated reference in MRS [§] 199-7

 

(Bold emphasis omitted.) The Trans, conversely, azgued that the
State waived its right to pursue the instant appeal because the
circuit court’s February 1, 2002 order granting the Trans’ motion
to dismiss was an appealable order and that the State should have
filed its notice of appeal within thirty days of the entry of the
order, pursuant to HRAP 4(a)(1). Inasmuch as the State did not
appeal the order within thirty days, the Trans believed that
*[the state's] right to prosecute [the instant] appeal [was] time
barred.* Consequently, the Trans maintained that the ICA lacked
appellate jurisdiction. Additionally, the Trans argued that the
circuit court correctly dismissed the verified petition because
HAR §§ 13-95-70 and 13-95-71 dia not:

(2) spociticatly authorize forfeiture of [the) property: and
(2) cthervise fa1i in the category of other offenses for
which forfeiture of property is permitted under [H25)

5 -712a-d. “The statute [the State) relies on, HRS § 199-7,
nerely delineates the nature and scope of the police power
bestowed on enforcenent officers of the DLIR, DOCARE.” T=
does not authorize or sandate the blanket seirure and/or
forfeiture of property for alleged viclations of [ene] HAR
generally and/or HAR $6 13-95-70 and 13-95-71 specifically,

 

 

In its February 27, 2008 published opinion, the ICA

accepted the State

 

arguments and vacated the circuit court's

 

(2) February 1, 2002 order granting the Trans’ motion to dismiss;
(2) Decenber 6, 2004 judgment entered in favor of the Trans; and
(3) January 20, 2005 order relating to the Trane’ motion to
strike. Qne Boat, slip op. at 27-28, As discussed more fully

infra, the ICA held that (1) there was appellate jurisdiction

nia
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

inasmuch as the State timely appealed from the December 6, 2004
judgment and (2) the circuit court erred in dismissing the
State's verified petition for forfeiture because “HRS § 199-7
authorizes the DLNR to initiate forfeiture proceedings for
violations of DLNR rules, including the rules allegedly violated
(by the Trans], and accordingly those rules were “covered
offense(s]* for purposes of HRS (cJhapter 712A." Id. at 15.

‘he Trans timely filed their application for a writ of
certiorari on May 27, 2008. The State filed a response on May
30, 2008, This court accepted the Trans’ application on June 26,
2008 and heard oral argument on Septenber 4, 2008.

XT. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
A. Statutory Interpretation

sthe interpretation of a statute . . . is a question of law
reviewble de nove.” Elerv. Holguin’ 94 Hawat's 10, 76-77,
5'p.34 362, 388°89 (2000) (original brackets, internal
Citations, ‘and sone ellipses oniteed). further, *(e)hte
Court hae accorded persuasive weight £0 the construction of
Statucen by administrative agencies charged with overseeing
and inplenenting a particular statutory schene.*

Teague, Lid. v. Yawaii Civ, Rights Comm'n. 89 Hawai's 269,
Peeee STL ead tide, itl ne? (1999) Nonetheless, “én
interpretation by an agency of a statute it adninisters 1s
fot extitied co deference if the interpretation is plainly
Stroreous and inconsistent with both the letter and intent

 

   

 

 

 

  

 

of the statutory mandate.” “Maglev. State, 211 Hawai'i 146,
$50, 270 8.34 377, 383 (2006) (citation omitted)

Capua v. Weverhaeuser, 117 Hawai'i 439, 444, 184 P.3d 191, 196

(2008) .

“is.
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

B. Motion to Dismiss

°A [circuit] court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss is
reviewed de nove." Kamaka v. Goodsil Anderson Quinn & Stifel,
117 Hawai'i 92, 104, 176 P.34 91, 103 (2008) (citation omitted) .

TIT. DEscUSsION

As previously stated, the Trans contend that the ICA
erred in (1) concluding that it had appellate jurisdiction and
(2) vacating the circuit court's (a) February 1, 2002 order
granting the Trans’ motion to dismiss, (b) December 6, 2004
judgment, and (c) January 20, 2005 order regarding the Trans’
notion to strike the judgment. The Trans argue, first, that the
ICA lacked jurisdiction to decide the State’s appeal inasmuch as
the State did not timely appeal from the circuit court's February
1, 2002 order, which the Trans believe was a final appealable
order, Secondly, the Trans argue -- as they did before the ICA
-- that the circuit court correctly dismissed the state's
verified petition for forfeiture because HAR §§ 13-95-70 and
1395-71: (1) did not "specifically authorize forfeiture of their
property"; and (2) did not ‘otherwise fall in the category of
other offenses for which forfeiture of property is permitted
under (HRS) § 712A-4.* Each of the Trans’ contentions are
addressed in turn.
A. Appellate Jurisdiction

Before reaching the merits of the State’s appeal, the
ICA determined that it had appellate jurisdiction to decide the

-16-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

SSS

case. Qne Boat, slip op. at 12. Specifically, the ICA held,
inter alia, that:

[rlhe February 1, 2002 (olrder was not a final judgnent fron
which the State could appeal. Because the State petitioned
for in Fem forfeiture pursuant to NRE § 112A~12, the NRCP
Geply, State y. Tulpuapua, #3 Hawai'i 141, 153," 925 p.2a
SH. aaa"tisael: “HRCP Rule 58 applies to civil actions ‘in
Jt Courts of the State,’* and that rule “requires
that ‘every Judgment shall be sot forth on a separate
Gocument.’* Alford v. City lei County of Honoluly, 109
Hewal't 14, 2G, 122 P.34 808, B15 (2005) (quoting HRCP Rule
Se). the Wavai'l supreme Court has established "bright Line
Toles," holding that "lala appeal may be taken from circuit
Court order resolving laine against parties only after the
Srdere have been reduced to a judgent and the judgment has
Seen entered in favor of and against the appropriate parti
Porguent co MBCP Mule $8." Jenking v. Cages Schutte Fleming
96 Hawai'l 135, 119, 869 P20 1334, 1338 (1996)
Hper curiam). Accordingly,’ an order disposing of a
circuit court cage 1s appealabie when the order 1s reduced
foe separate judgment. id, at 19, 869 P.2d at 3338
Thus, aves if the elveuit court's February 1, 2002 (olzder
Fesoived all the clains regarding all parties, under ERCP
Rule $e and the Havai't Suprene Court's holding in Jenkins.
the circuit court's February 1, 2002 (olrder needed to be
Feduced to a separate judgment’ before the period for the
State's appeal began to run.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

one Boat, slip op. at 12 (original brackets onitted).

As previously stated, the Trans argue, on application,
that the ICA lacked jurisdiction to decide the case.
specifically, they contend that, pursuant to HRAP Rule 4, “the
Geadline for [the State] to file a notice of appeal to challenge
[the circuit court]’s (February 1, 2002 o]rder dismissing the
(vlerified (pletition was March 30, 2002" because

[e)here is no basis in fact or law to dispute [the circuit
Court's olrder dismissing (che State] "s (vierified
{pletition was 2 final sppealable order that directed all
laine for relief sought sy (the state) were denied and
Elniesea in their entirety. (The state] took no action to
preserve or prosecute [its) right to appeal (the circuit
Gourtl’s ruling for 2 years and 9 months

 

 

 

 

 

“17
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

Additionally, the Trans contend that:

‘The ICA's application of Jenking v utte, Flesnis
Te Mawai's 125, 869.24 1994 (13941, to The Fact
Of this case was erronedue ond bordered on abeurd. he 2
above, (HRAP] Rule 4 mandaves that a notice of appeal
must be filed within i0'daye of the filing of a judgment or
appealabie order. The ICA held that(,] under Jenking and
THRCP) Rule 58... [the clreule court] s order digniai
[the trans’ vieritied [pjetition vas not subject to appea!
until a separate judgment was filed, ‘There is no compelling

 

  

      

 

  

Feason for this [clourt to adopt a rigid application ef
Jenkins £9 the facte and circumstances of thie case, the
“Bright line rule" developed in enking was intended to

eliminate confusion regarding the deadline for filing =
Rotice of appeal in canes where there has been only
partial resolution of cases involving mitipie parcies
and/or miltipie clains. Tt was also intended to relieve
Hawaii's appellate courte fron the burden of having to
review the proceedings of the lower court to verify ail
claina agains: all parties had actual been disposed of
‘These concerns are not at issue in chia cose

      

 

(Gmphasis in original.) we disagree.

As previously quoted, HRAP Rule 4(a) (1) provided in
relevant part that, ‘when a civil appeal is permitted by law, the
notice of aupeal shall be filed within 30 davs after entry of the
udoment or ampealable order." (mmphasis added.) RCP Rule 58
(2007) provides in relevant part that:

‘The filing of the judgnent in che office of the clerk.
Fand che Judgment 1
ive before such entry. The entry of the judsmen
Shall not be delayed for the taxing of conte, Avery
Sudament ehall rate docunent

   

(Emphasis added.) In Jenkins, this court held that the sole

purpose of the separate document provision contained in HRCP Rule

 

58 ‘is to determine when the time for appeal commences." 76
Hawai'i at 118, 869 P.2d at 1337. More importantly, the Jenkins
court held, inter alia, that *{aln appeal may be taken fron

scixcuit court orders resolving clains against parties only after

-18-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

‘the orders have been reduced to a judument and the judgment has
been entered in favor of and against the appropriate parties
pursuant to HRCP [Rule] 58." Id, at 119, 869 P.2d at 1338
(emphasis added). Further, the Jenkins court held that such
sbright line rules* would be strictly enforced. Id, Thus, based
on Jenkins and HRCP Rule 58, an order is not appealable, even if
it resolves all claims against the parties, until it has been
reduced to a separate judgment. Although, certain exceptions to
this rule have been recognized, specifically, with regard to
post-judgment orders, see, e.g., Ditto v, McCurdy, 103 Haw. 153,
80 P.3d 974 (2003) (holding that trial court’s order on a post-
judgment motion was a final order for appeal purposes), and
ongoing family court cases, see, e.d., State, Child Support
Enforcement Agency v, Doe, 98 Hawai'i 58, 41 P.34 720 (App. 2001)

(holding that the HRCP are inapplicable to proceedings in the

 

family courts), neither of those exceptions apply in this c
Therefore, no appeal was possible from the circuit court's
February 1, 2002 order resolving all the claims until such order
was reduced to a judgment. Accordingly, we hold the ICA
correctly determined that it had appellate jurisdiction.

8. State's Verified Petition for For!

As previously stated, the State argued on direct appeal
that the circuit court erred in granting the Trans’ motion to
dismiss because the plain language of HRS § 199-7 “clearly
provided for forfeiture under Chapter 712A for violations of

-19-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

- . . the administrative rules promulgated pursuant to Title 12.*
‘The State, additionally, pointed to the legislative history of
HRS § 199-7 as evincing the legislature's intent to authorize
forfeiture for violations of administrative regulations
promulgated by DLNR pursuant to Title 12.

The ICA agreed with the State and concluded that “the
circuit court's analysis (was) contrary to both the plain
language of the applicable statutes and rules, as well as the
intent of the legislature as reflected by the legislative
history." gne Boat, slip op. at 15, with regard to the plain
language of the applicable statutes, the ICA reasoned that, *foin

its face, HRS § 199-7 unambiguously provid

 

that property used
in violation of Title 12 and the rules adopted thereunder is
subject to seizure and forfeiture.” Id, at 16. The ICA also

pointed out that HRS § 199-7(b) provides that forfeiture "shall

 

be ‘pursuant to [C]hapter 712A.’* Id. The ICA further reasoned

that, ‘although ‘covered offen:

 

is implicitly defined in HRS

§ 712A-4(a)* as offenses ‘which specifically authorize

 

forfeiture," the term ‘covered offense" is also defined in HRS

§ 712A-1 [ (Supp. 2000),] entitled *Definitions.* Id. at 17.

 

Specifically, the ICA statet

“covered of fens

 

is defined (in ums § 7124-1) a6 ‘ony crine
set forth in section [HRS §] 712A-¢ or any other offense for
Which fortelture ie provided by the lav relating toa
articular offense." HRS § 7124-1" (Sopp. 2000) lesphasis|
Sdded). There ie nothing in that provision which requires
that the authorization for forfeiture appear ia the language
Of the covered offense itself; to the contrary, the
Getinicion makes clear that a provision such aa HRS § 199-7

 

   

-20-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

which *relat(es] tot the covered offense, and provides for
forfeiture for a violation of it, is sufficient. ERS
F712ac4 (a) 's reference to toffenses which specifically
duthorize forfeiture’ should be read in Tight of § 712A:1's
Fefereace to tthe law relating toa particular offense.
aon so read, HRS § 7L2A-4(a) does not require that the
tuthorization for forfeiture be included in the covered
ottense seselt

 

 

 

Id. at 17-18 (some brackets in original) (citation omitted).
Additionally, the ICA determined that the Trans’ contention “that
‘HRS § 199-7, merely delineates the nature and scope of the
police powers bestowed on enforcement officers of the (DLNR],’*
was without merit because, ‘under [the Trans]’ interpretation,
the provisions in HRS § 199-7 authorizing forfeitures would be
superfluous." Id, at 19 (citing Camara v. Agsalud, 67 Haw. 212,
215-16, 685 P.2d 794, 797 (1984) (*It is a cardinal rule of
statutory construction that courts are bound, if rational and
practicable, to give effect to all parts of a statute, and that
no clause, sentence, or word shall be construed as superfluous,
void, or insignificant if a construction can be legitimately
found which will give force to and preserve all the words of the
statute.")). The ICA also concluded that

the legielative history of HRS § 199-7 and Chapter 712A
Confirms that the legislature intended [HRS] 199-7 to
Scthorize DLN to seize and forfeit property used in
Violating HRS Title 12, and any rules adopted thereunder,
‘Without requiring each’ individual statute or rule, oF
Spplicable penalty provision, to specifically refer to
forfeiture.

 

 

Id. at 20.
on application, the Trans argue that the ICA erred

inasmich as its “decision is based on an unconstitutionally broad

-21-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

and inaccurate interpretation of HRS § 199-7." specifically, the

‘Trans contend that,

(a) though HRS § 199-7 provides [DOCARE olfficers with
police powers, including the ability to execute seizures and
Forfeituves, & plain reading of the statute clearly

the statute does nothing nore than delineate the

forcement tools bestowed of (DOCARE)
officers. Te does not authorize or mandate the blanket
Seizure and/or forfeiture of property for all violations of
the HAR.” Moreover, HRS § 199°7(b) indicates that whether or
hot property is subject to forfeiture 19% the
Fequiremests of HRS [eJhapter 7128. HRS ¢ TI2A-¢(a)
Esduitas 2 ‘covered offense’ —- an offense which
Specifically authorizes forfeiture. in this case, neither
EAR §§ 13-95-10 [or) 13-95-11, of any of the penalty.
provisions for violations of those adninietrative rules,

Ebscifically authorize forfeiture
(Emphases in original.)

 

    

 

   

    

crt is a well-established rule of statutory
construction that this court's foremost obligation is to
ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature,

which is to be obtained primarily from the language contained in

the statute itself." Kaho‘ o .

117 Hawai'i 262, 288, 178 P.3d 538, 564 (2008) (citation omitted)
(format altered). In construing statutory language, this court
has adhered to the following framework:

Soe ice seus iaguoe anet
seins ch Abe ae tee
festa [tae Sttaan giant oe
EE SRE SaAh at acer st Te
SOs Le
Ep cuenta a Seb, 4
en heist Gilet toe th
eagles fee tamu ie

 

 

 

-22-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

red C: ng_on wats Permit ion, 116
Hawai'i 481, 489-90, 174 P.34 320, 328-29 (2007) (citation
omitted) (format altered). Moreover, this court has stated that,

where the statute ia clear and unanbiguous, [we are) bound by
{ee plain and snanbiguous Language(.)” We cannot change the
Janguage of the statute, supply 4 want, or enlerge upon it
inorder fo make it mait a certain state of facte. We do
hot legislate or sake laws. ven when the co)

 

 

 

we ian thee
Beas ae autnority to desert trom the plain
eaning of the Lanaunce used

State v. Klie, 116 Hawai'i 519, 525, 174 P.34 358, 364 (2007)
(emphasis added) (format altered) (citation and original brackets
omitted).

Here, the State sought forfeiture of the Trans’
property under Chapter 712A for alleged violations of HAR
S§ 13-95-70 and 13-95-71. As previously quoted, HRS § 712A-5
provides that itens subject to forfeiture include *(b) [plroperty
used or intended for use in the commission of, attempt to commit,
or conspiracy to commit a covered offense, or which facilitated
or assisted such activity.” (fmphasis added.) The phrase

“covered offense" is defined in HRS § 712A~4 and, as previously

 

quoted, state:

covered offenses. offenses for which proverty is
subject to forfeiture under this chapter ae:
Ta) “Si offenses which specifically authorize forteicure:

(b) Murder, kidnapping, gambling, criminal property damage,
fobbery, bribery, extortion, theft, unauthorized entry into
Soter vehicle, Burglary, soney laundering, trademark
Counterfeiting, inmurance fraud, promoting a dangerous,
harmful, of detrimental drug, of commercial promotion of
Sarijuaha, which is chargeable as a felony offense under
state laws

fc], the manufacture, sale, o distribution of a controlled
Substance in violation of chapter 329, promoting detrimental

 

-23-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

rugs or intoxicating compounds, promoting pornography.
promoting pornography for minors, or proneting prostitution,
fhicn 1s chargeable as a felony or misdemeanor offense, but
hot as a petty misdemeanor, under state law; and
(a) “The attempt, conspiracy, solicitation, coercion, or
intimidation of another to commit any offense for which
property is subject to forfeiture.
(Bold emphasis in original.) (Underscored emphases added.) ‘The
ICA, however, reasoned that the definition contained in HRS
§ 712A-1 ‘makes clear that a provision such as HRS § 199-7 which
‘relat (es) to’ the covered offense, and provides for forfeiture
for a violation of it, is sufficient.’ Qne Boat, slip op. at 18

(bracket

 

in original).
Based on a plain reading, HRS § 712A-1 envisions two
separate categories of “covered offenses,” one being ‘any crine
set forth in section 712-4" and the other, ‘any other offense
for which forfeiture is provided by the law relating to a
particular offense." Standing alone, the latter phrase -- ‘any
other offense for which forfeiture is provided by the law
relating to a particular offense’ -- may appear ambiguous because
of the lack of reference to section 714A-4 as in the former
phrase. However, when reading HRS § 7128-1 in pari materia with

HRS § 712A-4, as this court is required to do, it is clear that

 

(2) *any crime set forth in section 712-4" refers to those
crimes specifically enumerated in subsections (b) through (a) of
ERS § 712-4 and (2) ‘any other offense for which forfeiture is
provided by the law relating to a particular offense" refers to

those offenses in HRS § 712A-4(a), i.e., ‘all offenses which

-24-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

specifically authorize forfeiture.” Thus, we conclude that the
definition of “covered offense” contained in HRS § 712A-1 does

not broaden or contradict the definition found in HRS § 712A~,

 

both definitions are consistent and parallel each other
consequently, the ICA's reliance on the phrase “relat[es] to" is
unavailing. Accordingly, inasmuch as HRS §§ 712A-4(b) through
-4(d) are clearly inapplicable under the facts of this case, the
relevant inquiry is whether the offenses described in HAR

§5 13-95-70 and 13-95-71 “specifically authorize forfeiture."

At the time the offenses in the instant case were
allegedly committed, HAR §§ 13-95-70 and 13-95-71 plainly stated
that the intentional taking of stony coral and live rocks was
prohibited without a permit. However, both regulations were
silent as to the penalty for violating either or both
regulations. The "Rules Regulating the Taking and Selling of
Certain Marine Resources," promilgated by the DLNR, of which HAR
$$ 13-95-70 and 13-95-71 are a part, contained a penalty section,
which stated that *[a] person violating [these rules] shall be
punished as provided by law.* HAR § 13-95-2 (1998). Clearly.
neither HAR §§ 13-95-70 and 13-95-71 nor the aforementioned
penalty section contain any language relating to forfeiture.
‘Thus, nothing in the administrative regulations thenselves
sepecifically authorize forfeiture.”

However, as previously stated, HAR §§ 13-95-70 and
13-95-71 were authorized and inplenented pursuant to HRS § 187-5

-25-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

(1993), which provides that, “{slubject to [CJhapter 91, [DLNR]
shall adopt, amend, and repeal rules for and concerning the
protection and propagation of introduced and transplanted aquatic
life, or the conservation and allocation of the natural supply of
aquatic life in any area." HRS § 187A-5 further provides that,
“[aJi1 rules shall have the force and effect of law. Any person
who violates anv of the rules adopted pursuant to this section
shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor and upon conviction
thereof shall be punished as provided by section 188-70."
(Emphases added.) In turn, HRS § 188-70 provided in relevant
part:

(a) Any person violating any provision of this
chapter: or any rule adopted pursuant thereto, Le
Gallty of a petty misdemeanor and, in addition to any other
Penaivies, shall be fined not less thant

(2) $100 for a first offense:

(2) $200 for @ second offense; and

(3) $500 for & thisa or eubeequant offense

 

Based on a plain reading of the aforementioned statutes, the only
punishments allowed for a violation of HAR §§ 13-95-70 and

13-95-71 are the fines listed in HRS § 188-70 or “any other

 

penalty," HRS § 188-70, or any punishnent "permitted by law," HAR
§ 13-95-2, Accordingly, we next examine whether forfeiture can
be considered “any other penalty" or a punishment ‘permitted by
law.

As previously discussed, the State’s position is
grounded in HRS § 199-7 as the law permitting forfeiture as a

penalty in this case. Clearly, the ICA agreed, However, both

-26-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

the state and the ICA ignored the plain language in HRS

§ 199-7(b) that ‘[a]ny equipment, . . . vessel, . . . or natural
resource seized is subject to forfeiture pursuant to [Clhapter
aga." (Emphases added.) Again, HRS § 712A-4(a) requires that
items subject to forfeiture are those seized in connection with
*offenses which specifically authorize forfeiture." Thus, had
the legislature not included the reference to Chapter 712A in HRS
§ 199-7, forfeiture could be considered an ‘other penalty" and/or
a punishment "permitted by law (i.e., HRS § 199-7).* In fact,
the inclusion of the reference to Chapter 712A is consistent with
the plain language of HRS § 712A-4(a)‘s requirement that items
subject to forfeiture are those seized in connection with
‘offenses which specifically authorize forfeiture.”

Consequently, the ICA was incorrect in stating that,

 

(ulnéer [the Trang") interpretation, the legisiature’®
approach in 1989 [ (amending #BS 5 199-7)1, Le, including a

‘gie authorization for the seizure and forfeiture of
fatural resources in HRS § 199-7, yould have been
inconsiatent with its purported intent in 1988 | (edoption of
BRERISHEER, TES requlve that such authorization appear in
teach individual statute or rule to which it applied

 

 

 

one Boat, slip op. at 26 (emphasis added). Likewise, the ICA's
view that, ‘under [the Trans)’ interpretation, the provisions in
HRS § 199-7 authorizing forfeiture would be superfluous," id. at
19 (citation omitted), is also incorrect

Indeed, a review of other adninistrative regulations
promulgated pursuant to Title 12, supports the opposite

conclusion, i.e,, that the legislature did pot intend forfeiture

-27-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

to apply to all violations of Title 12. The DLNR, has explicitly
specified forfeiture as a penalty, consistent with section
7LdA-4(a)'s requirement that the offense specifically authorize
forfeiture. To illustrate, HAR § 13-12-12 (1999), entitled
vRules Regulating Gane Bird Hunting, Field Trials, and Commercial
Shooting Preserves," and HAR § 13-123-22 (1999), entitled “Rules
Regulating Gane Mannal Hunting," were both promulgated by the
DUNR pursuant to HRS §§ 183D-3 and 1830-4 and each identically

provides in relevant part that:

 

Persons found to be in violation of any provision of this
Chapter may have their hunting privileges revoked by the
Gepartment, after notice and hearing. (DINR) may reinstate
revoked hunting privileges upon mibsequent completion of
State-approve inter education Course. Any eniioment.

axticle, inutrunent, aircrafs, vehicle vessel. busines
fecord or natura: resource ustd or taken in vidlettonof the
brovisioné of this chapter mar be seized and subject to
forteiture a7 and chapter

Tae
HAR §§ 13-122-12(£) (3) and 13-123-22(g) (3) (emphases added). The

 

 

foregoing specific authorizations for forfeiture carved out by
the DLNR would be rendered superfluous were this court to adopt
the ICA's view that the legislature, in enacting and anending HRS
§ 199-7, intended forfeiture to apply to all violations of Title
12, Accordingly, based on a plain reading of the subject
regulations at issue, we conclude that unless the offense is one
of those enumerated in subsections (b) through (4) of HRS

§ 712-4, the offense must “specifically authorize forfeiture’ as
required by HRS § 712A-4(a) in order to render the taking of the

property lawful, and, as previously discussed, neither HAR

-28-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

§§ 13-95-70 nor 13-95-71 specifically authorize forfeiture.
consequently, we old that the ICA erred in vacating the circuit
court’s orders and judgment.

Inasmuch as the foregoing analysis is based entirely on
the plain language of the statutes and regulations at issue, any
discussion regarding legislative history is unnecessary.” See
Elie, 116 Hawai‘ at 526, 174 P.3d at 365 (‘where the statute is
clear and unambiguous, [this court] is bound by its plain and
unambiguous language"). The ICA, in the instant case, also
Getermined that the language of the relevant statutes and
regulations was clear and unambiguous, but, nevertheless,
asserted that *the plain language of HRS § 199-7 and Chapter 712A

establi

 

h{ed] that the legislature intended to authorize
the forfeiture of property used to violate rules adopted pursuant
to Title 12 such as those at issue here.* ne Boat, slip op. at
27, Despite its reliance on the plain language, the ICA looked
to the legislative history of HRS § 199-7 and Chapter 712A for
additional support for its conclusion. Id, at 20, 27, Thus,
inasmuch as reasonable minds can differ as to the plain meaning

of the relevant statutes and regulations as evinced by our

 

> tn fact, we note that the TCA specifically concluded that “KES
5 199-7 ungublavously provides that property used in violation of [t]itle 12
and the rules adopted thereunder is subject to seizure and forfeiture[,]* One
Boat, slip op. at 16 (emphasis added), and that, "when NRS § 712A-4 e’read in
HIgh Gf the other provisions of (cJhapter 712a and [e]itle 32, there is ao
ambiguity." Jd. at 19 (emphasis added), Tt, nevertheless, deived into fhe
{Splslative history based upon this court’s pronouncenent in Bowers v. Alene
Renteaccar, 88 Wawas't 274, 262, 965 7.24 1274, 1282 (1998) (Ramil, J,
ESREIESINS “thar sunsequent legislative history or anendsents may be exanined
ES confirm the appellate coure's statutory interpretation.

 

 

 

    

     
 

-29-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

differing interpretations and recognizing that the result reached
by the ICA may be appealing, especially when considering the
legislature's recognition that certain individuals continue to
violate the conservation law and rules despite the DLNR’s
enforcenent efforts to conserve and protect Hawaii's natural
resources, we examine the ICA’s reliance on the legislative
history.

HRS § 199-7 was originally promulgated in 1978 and has
since been anended eight tines, the last having occurred in 2004
(2004 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 142, § 14 at 609, 614). AB
originally promulgated, section 199-7 provided:

Seizure and forfeiture of equipment. Any eavipnent,
article, or instrunent used or possessed sn vielation of
title 12 and vules and regulations promilgated thereunder,
is declared to be a public nuisance and sunject to seizure
by any enforcenent officer of the department of land and
patural resources, or by any police officer) and upon
Conviction of the person having possession or control of
Such equipment, article oF instrument for a violation of any
provision of such laws or rules and requlations, the
equipment, article or instrument nay be declared by the
Court to be forfeited to the Sate.” Any property #0
forfeited shail be turned over to che department of Land and
natural resources and destroyed, if illegal, or otherwise
Shall be sola at public auction in the sudicial circuit in
hich if vas seized, che auction to be held once annually at
2 place and tine to be designated by the department and
Rotice thereof to be published In a newspaper of general
Glrculation within the judicial circuit at least once before
the auction, ‘che first publication co be not less than
twenty days’ prior to the auction. ‘The auction shall be
condueced by's person other than an employes of the
Separtuent but designated by the deparenent

 

 

 

 

© The anendnent made in 2004 is not relevant to the cage at bar

tnagmich ag the incident in question occurred in October 2000 and, thus, has
pot been Inclided in the discussion herein.

-30-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

1978 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 171, § 1 at 354 (bold emphasis in
original and italicized emphasis added). The purpose of the
legislation was

to establish a conservation and resources enforcement
program within the (DUNK), for enforcenent of laws, rules
and regulations under Title 12{.] At present, five
Givieions and the (DUNR'e) planning office have enforcement
Fesponsibilities. This [legislation] is intended to
Consolidate and coordinate the enforcenent of all rules and
Feguiations covering all State lands and aay other Lande and
waters subject fo the Jurisdiction of the [DLN]

 

 

Sen. Stand. Comm, Rep. No. 178-78, in 1978 Senate Journal at 855;
see also Sen. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 489-78, in 1978 Senate
Journal at 976 (reiterating the above-quoted stated purpose) .

In 1983, section 199-7 was amended *to enhance the
program activities of the Division of Conservation and Resources
Enforcenent [(DOCARE)], [DLWR].* Sen. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 232,
in 1983 Senate Journal at 1143. As enacted, section 199-7

provided (new material underscored;

 

Geleted material bracketed

and stricken!

 

Seizure and forfeiture of (emeipment=]
Bay equipment, article, [er] inptrunent, aircraft,
Drvessels, sed or possessed in violation of title 12 ane
Files. (en-requtectone-promstgaed) adapted thereunder, is
Geclared to be a public nuisance and subject to seizure by
ny enforcement officer of the department of land and
Batural resources or by any police officer; and upon
Conviction of the person having possession or control of
Such equipment, article, (or) instrument, al
Yehicles. or vessels, for a violation of any provision of
foucsl the lave cr roles (and-regeteetone], the equipment,

 

 

article, (er) instrument, s ee
may be declared by the court to be forfeited to the state(=]
= A the srocedus: ip eh Ha

Gana Code.t") Any property so forfeited shall be tumed

 

Sgn 3983, HRS § 701-119 (2985) provided in relevant part:

Procedure for forfeiture. (1) Applicability of procedure.
[contsnued...)

-31-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

over to the department of land and naturel resources and
Gestroyed, if illegal, or otherwise shall be sold at public
Suction in the judicial circuit in which it wes seizes, the
auction to be held once annually at a place and tine to be
designated by the department and notice therest to
Bablished in a newspaper of general circulation within the
Judicial circuit at least once before the auction, the {iret
publication to be not less than twenty days prior to the
faction. The auction shail be conducted by person other
than an exployee of the department but designated by the
department

1983 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 99, § I at 171 (underscored and bold

   
 

emphases in original) (strike out formatting added). another
purported purpose of the amendment was to provide DLNR with the
option “to retain and use the forfeited property when declared by
the court to be forfeited to the State in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the Hawaii Penal Code." Hse. stand

Comm. Rep. No. 721, in 1983 House Journal at 1174, Curiously,

however, such option does not appear in the 1983 language, but

2. continued)

Wienever a forfeiture is provided for by this Code, or i

ipg to a particular

fn general, the
Procedure for forfeiture shall be set forth in this section,
Unless a different procedure is otherwise provided by law

(2)° When forfeiture 1s ordered. Subject to the
requirements of subsection (4) { (governing notice), when
forfeiture 1s authorized by lew, ie may be ordered by the
court upon:

a

 

 

for forfeiture
the conviction of a parson for

 

 
 
 

OF Other acts with
forfeited; or

(b) An action for an in ven for forfeiture
brought by the state upon a complaint
alleging that a persos, known or unknown,
unlawfully possessed, uses, or otherwise
acted with Fespect to the thing that is
forfeited,

 

‘The commentary to HRS § 701-119 stated: “this section permite forfeitures
following appropriate convictions and, in those cases where convictions cannot
be obtained because, ‘or example, the’ offender has fled or 1s unknown,
following an action’ in rem against the thing to be forfeited.”

 

  

32
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

does in the 1985 amendment. See 1985 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 222,
Slat 402-03."

As support for its position that "the legislature
intended [HRS] § 199-7 to authorize forfeiture for violations of
[title] 12 and the rules adopted thereunder,” the ICA points
specifically to the language contained in the original 1978

version of HRS § 199-7, i.e., (1) that “any equipment, article,

 

 

As enacted, the 1985 version provided (new material underscored;
deleted material bracketed and stricken):

Seizure and forfeiture of certain property. xy equipment,
Srticie, instrument, aircraft, [werterewr! vabicls, or
fecoseigr) vessel, used or posseused in violation of title
iTand rules adopted thereunder, is declared to be a public
Ruigence and subject co seizure by any enforcenant officer
Sf the department of land and natural resources or by any
police officer; and upon conviction of the person having
Possession or control of such equipment, article,
Ehatroment, aircrafe, (venteteer) vehicle, or (veeweter]
yagsel. for 2 violation of any provision of the laws oF
Files, ‘the equipment, article, instrusent, aircraft,
[wehscter| usblcla, or [veweetwr) vessel. may be declared
by the court to be forfeived co the State in sccordance with
the procedure set forth in. (the-timwett-penei-eoder] gestion
‘sta. “ney (eecperey) souinnent, article, insizunent,
fincraft, vehicle, or vesse] so forfeited shail be turned
Sof land and natural

 

  

 

 

 

   

the deparene fe-agencv, shall
Ssia-at public auction in the judicial circuit in which it
Mar seized, the auction to be held once annually at a place
ind tine ro be designates by the department and notice
Thereof to be published in a newspaper of general
circulation within the judicial circuit at lesst once before
fhe auction, the first publication co be not less than
twenty days prior to the suction. The auction shall be
Conducted by a person other than an employee of the
Gepartnent but designated by the department.

‘The depsrenent of land and natural resources sha

compile a List of all equipment articles, instrusante,
Siverait. vehicles, of vessels forfeited as provided 1a this
Section and shall mublish the List in ita annual report.

 

1985 Haw. Sess, Laws Act 222, § 1 at 403 (underscored and bold emphases in
Original) {eerike out formatting and italicized aphasia added) «

-33-
*** FORPUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

or instrument used or possessed in violation of Title 12 and
rules and regulations thereunder, is declared to be a public
nuisance and subject to seizure . . . * and, (2) "upon conviction
of the person having control of such equipment, articlel,] or
instrument for a violation of any provision of such laws or rules
and regulations, the equipment, article or instrument may be
declared by the court to be forfeited to the State.” One Boat,
slip op. at 21 (emphasis added). Although the aforementioned
“public nuisance and “upon conviction" language is contained in
the 1978, 1983, and 1985 versions of ERS § 199-7, such language
(as discussed more fully infra) was deleted in 1989. In other
words, prior to 1989, conviction was a prerequisite to
forfeiture; after 1989, it is not. The deletion of the public
nuisance/conviction language is particularly significant in the
context of the two distinct types of forfeiture recognized by
law: in mexsonan and in xem. Under in personam forfeiture

actions, the forfeiture of property is "a part, or at le

 

ca
consequence, of the judgment of conviction.” ‘he Palmvra, 25
U.S. 1, 9 (1827), Conversely, in xem forfeiture is not intended
to be a consequence of conviction, but is entirely separate from
the judgment of conviction. In other words, in xem forfeitures
were “not considered punishment against the individual for an
offense," United States v. Baiakaiian, 524 U.S. 321, 331 (1998);
rather, it is the *thing(, i.e., the property, that) is .
primarily considered as the offender, or rather the offence [sic]

34.
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

is attached primarily to the thing," Balmra, 25 U.S. at 9. The
pre-1989 versions of HRS § 199-7 clearly require conviction prior
to forfeiture and, thus, provide solely for in pexsonam
forfeiture. As discussed infra, in 1939, the legislature deleted
any reference in HRS § 199-7 to conviction as a prerequisite to
forfeiture and instead provided that property seized be “subject
to forfeiture pursuant to [C]hapter 712A." Chapter 712A includes
provisions for both in xen and in personam forfeiture.” The
ICA, however, apparently overlooked the aforementioned
Gistinction inasmuch as its relied explicitly on the pre-1989
versions of HRS § 199-7 as support for its holding that the
current version of HRS § 199-7 is intended as a blanket
authorization of forfeiture for violations of Title 12. In our
view, the ICA's reliance on the pre-1989 versions of HRS § 199-7
is unavailing inasmuch as they clearly interposed conviction as a
precondition to forfeiture and, thus, are substantively different
from the current version of HRS § 199-7

in 1989, the subject statute was again amended "to

clarify an area where the authority of an agent of the [DLNR] to

 

4 Rs § 722a-23 (2993 and Supp. 2007) provides in relevant part:

adicial in personan forfeiture proceedings. (1) 2 a
forfeiture ie authorized by law, it shall be ordered by @
court on a petition for forfeiture filed by the proseciting
Sttomey in'an in personam civil or criminal action,

io} “om a determination of liability or the conviction
of a person for conduct giving rise to forfeiture under this
eee ERS" coure shall enter a judgment of forfeiture of the
property described in the petition for forfeicure(.]

-35-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

confiscate unlawfully acquired natural resources is unclear.
This bill allows the search, seizure and forfeiture of ‘natural
resources(.]’" Sen. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 1290, in 1989 Senate
Journal at 1284; see algo Hse. Stand. Com. Rep. No. 631, in 1989
House Journal at 1064 (reiterating the aforenentioned purpose) ."*
As enacted, section 199-7 provided (new material underscored;
deleted material bracketed and stricken):

(Seizare] Search and seizure; forfeiture of [eerteim)
property. i : " -

\ re should be noted here that HRS chapter 712A wae enacted in 198
Se 1988 Haw" Sess. Lave Act 260, $1 at 457-12. introduced aa N.8. No. 2080,
The purpose of the legislation was to ‘authorize the forfe:ture of property
Used in the furtherance of specified offenses and to thereny deprive crimisals
of the profits of criminal activities.” Hse. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 2-88, in
1986 House Journal at 819 (emphasis added). “The louse Committee on Judiciary
observed hat, based on testisony fron the Honolula Polis Department and
Department of the Prosecuting Attorney, "the provisions proposed in the bill
would clarify the offenses giving cige to forfeiture, the property subsect to
Forfeiture, the procedures for forfeiture, and the disposition of forfeiture
proceeds." Id. (emphasis added)

   

 

 

 

 

Moreover, we note that between 1991 and 2006, the legislature anended
chapter 7128 eight tines, seven of which involved the addition of specific
offenses to those enumerated in HRS’ §§ 712k-4(B) through -4(a}, to wit:

(2) “ssoney Laundering, 1991 Haw, Seas. ‘et 166, § 1 at 629-37;

(2) “trademark counterfeiting, i997 Haw. Seas. Laws Act 277, $3 at 613-624;
(3) *ingurance fraud," 1996 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 155, £4 at $69-70;

(2) unauthorized entry into a motor vehicle," 1998 Kew. Sess. Laws Act 307.
$1 ae 968-89; (5) promoting child abuse, or electronic enticement of a
cnitg,* 2002 Haw. Sess. Laws act 200, $4 at €45; (6) “sexual exploitation of
| minor,* 2002 Maw, Sega. uawe Act 240, §§°5 and 21 at 949-53) and (7)
Sunlawril methanpictanine trafficking, manufacturing of a contralled
substances with a child present,” 2006 Haw. Sees, Laws Act 7, § 1 at 7-8
‘These anendnents clearly evince the legislature's belief that forfeiture is
applicable only when the offense “specifically authorizes] forfeiture," HRS
£'712a-4(a), oF Involves conviction of one of the offenses specifically
Gelineates in subsections (b) ehrough (3)

 

 

    

   

   

 

 

-36-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

“(b)_Any eauinment, axbicle, ingtrumnt, aircraft.
vehicle, vase. business records or natural resource

Seat aiins eeceion Tiaa-ie-or env other law to the
Sonkrary, any natural resource forfeited shalt be turned
SGaEaD po Mopartnent of Tand and natural resources for
Sisposition as determined by chat department end sav be
Geatroyed, if Tilegal, of nay be Kept and retained and
utilises by the department of land and natural resources or
any other state agency, oF if not needed or required by the
Gcpartment or ether svate agency, (ehet+) pay be sold at
Public auction in the judicla: circuit in which it vas
Eeized, the auction to be held once annually at a place and
fine to be designated by the department and notice thereof
fo be published in newspaper of general circulation within
the Subicial etreuit at least once before the auction, the
Hirst publication to be not less chan twenty days prior to
the auction, The auction shail be conducted by a person
Sther than an employes of the departnent but designated by
the department.

"The department of land and natural resources
spall compile a list of all equipment, article
{Retrunents, alreratt, venicles, (er) vessels, or any
hatural resource forfeited ar provided in this section and
Shall publish the lise in les annual report,

 

 

 

 

 

1989 Haw, Sess. Laws Act 122, § 1 at 241 (underscored and bold

emphases in original) (strike out formatting added) ."*

 

curiously, the legislature amended section 199-7 a second tine in
1989, see 1989 Haw, Sess. Laws Act 262, $9 at 574, 576-77, to renove the
reference to *section 701-119" in subsection (a) and replace it with ‘chapter
S22n" because section 701-119 had been repealed the year before. Sen. Stand
Con. Rep. No. 2524,, 5 9, in 1989 Senate Journal at 1302, Such an amendrent,
Sonever, appears to’ have’ been unnecessary in light of the complete replacenent
of subsection (a) via Act 122.

 

 

 

Additionally, we note here that section 199-7 was amended in 1997 (2997
naw. Sees. Laws Act 17, § 4 ae 20-22) and in 1998 (1998 Haw. Seas. Laws Act 2,
$53 at 3) 35-34), which amendments Go not impact the issues in this case and,
therefore, are not discussed here.

 

 

-37-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

‘The 1999 amendments to HRS § 199-7 are especially
relevant inasmuch as the resulting version is the one applicable
to the case at bar. As enacted, section 199-7 provided (new
material underscored; deleted material bracketed and stricken):

Search and seizure; forfeiture of property. (2) Any police
officer oF agent of the deparenent of land and natural
Fesources upon whom the board of land and natural resources
has conferred powers of police officers, shall have the
ty to conduct searches on probable cause ae provided
by law and to seize any equipeent, article, instrument,
aircraft, vehicle, vessel, business Tecorda, or natur
source used or taken in violation of the provisions
Contained in chapters 6 and 6K, oF title 12, oF any rules
adopted thereunder. For purposes of this section, *matur
ides any archaeological artifacts, ‘minerals,
any aquatic life er wildlite or parts thereot, including
Ehair eggs, and any land plants or pares thereof, including

 

 

   

        

 

 

   

 

article, instrument, aircraft,
jg records, or natural resource

 

destgnated-by—the-tepertmere") Unless otherwise directed by
fhe court pursuant to chapssr 712 any iten. other than a

she depsrenece.

  

Spe datursi aavironment or suitable hapitar or may De
ifthe naeur fr yae unlawfal iy seized,
7 jeposed of

Tc) The departrent of land and natural resources
shall compile a iat of a1) equipsent, articles
instruments, aircraft, venicles, vessels, of any natural

 

-38-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

resource forfeited as provided in this s
pablish the list in its annual report.
a sno an

   

 

ae
pur ce; ae nat the de ay Bot
ag ae ae naa ee
cone a saree oe as
ieTae provided by teu. The Gomareeene of
Sa hea eepteeeetnee at ues
pintat an ses

 

1999 Haw, Sess. Laws Act 233, § 1 at 720-21 (underscored and bold
emphases in original) (strike out formatting added). The purpose
of the aforementioned amendments was to “specify that the [DLNR]
may requixe persons who illegally took perishable natural
resources to sell those resources at fair market value with the
proceeds turned over to the department{] . . . and (to) ensure(]
that the resource itself is not wasted.” Sen. Stand. Comm. Rep
No, 1567, in 1999 Senate Journal at 1638; gee algo Hse. Stand.

comm. Rep. No. 948, in 1999 House Journal at 1380-81 (stating

-39-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

chat "procedures to manage perishable seized natural resources by
timely sale of the items will prevent waste of valuable
resources")

‘The ICA concluded that the aforementioned *conmittee
reports make clear that the legislature intended to provide DLNR
with the authority to seize and forfeit ‘natural resources!,1‘"
One Boat, slip op. at 26 (emphasis added), but failed to address
the apparent contradiction between its aforementioned conclusion
and the language in HRS § 199-7(b) that ‘any item, other than a
natural resource, seized shall be ordered forfeited to the state
for disposition as determined by the department{.]" Id.
(emphasis added). In our view, under HRS § 199-7, if forfeiture
is allowed and involves a natural resource, such forfeiture may
be made without court order; otherwise, a non-natural resource is
subject to disposition by the courts pursuant to the requirements
of Chapter 712A. See HRS § 712A-10 (Supp. 2007) (authorizing the
prosecuting attorney to initiate administrative forfeiture
proceedings); HRS § 712A-12 (1993) (providing that, “Lif a
forfeiture is authorized by law, it shall be ordered by a court
on an action in xem brought by the prosecuting attorney on a
verified petition for forfeiture’ (emphasis added)). The
aforementioned view is supported by the inclusion of subsection
(4), which -- in addition to the specific procedures for selling
perishable natural resources -- provides that *[t]he proceeds of
the sale, after deducting any reasonable costs of the sale

=40-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

incurred by the [DLNR], shall be subject to any administrative or
judicial proceedings in the sane manner as the seized natural
resource would have been, including an action in rem for the
forfeiture of the proceeds." HRS § 199-7() (Supp. 2000).

in sum, the legislative history of HRS § 199-7 does not
support the view that section 199-7 operates as a blanket
authorization for forfeiture, or authorizes forfeiture for all
Title 12 offenses, regardless of the lack of a specific
authorization for forfeiture delineated within the offense itself
or the absence of the offense in the enunerated list.
Accordingly, the foregoing legislative history demonstrates that:
(2) Sf forfeiture is authorized and the item being forfeited
involves a natural resource, the DLNR has authority to seize for
forfeiture perishable natural resources without adhering to the
judicial procedures set forth in Chapter 712A, see HRS
§ 722A-6(1) (c) (v) (Supp. 2007) (providing that a law enforcement
officer may make a seizure for forfeiture ‘without court process”
where *(t}he seizure for forfeiture is of perishable natural
resources seized and sold, pursuant to section 199-7, prior to

forfeiture proceeding’

 

and (2) forfeiture of non-natural
resources obtained from the commission of a "covered offense" is
subject to the requirements of Chapter 712A, see HRS § 7128-5
(2993 and Supp. 2007) (describing property subject to forfeiture,
including, inter alia, *(a) (plroperty described in a statute
authorizing forfeiture, (b) (plroperty used or intended for use

-a1-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

in the commission of, attempt to commit, or conspiracy to commit
a covered offense, or which facilitated or assisted such
activity" and *(f) [alny property derived from any proceeds which
were obtained directly or indirectly from the commission of a
covered offense").

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, we hold that

 

(2) the ICA had
jurisdiction over the State’s appeal; (2) HAR §§ 13-95-70 and
13-95-71 are not covered offenses within the meaning of HRS

5 712A-

 

and (3) the State’s forfeiture of the Trans’ property
was, therefore, unauthorized. Accordingly, we reverse the ICA's
March 17, 2008 judgment on appeal and affirm the circuit court's
February 1, 2002 order, December 6, 2004 judgment, and January

20, 2005 order

Bryan ¥. ¥. Ho, for Gi

petitioners/interested
‘persons appellees MDMLaarscoe
Charlotte J. Duarte, Deputy Buse OMraetiy ase

Prosecuting Attorney, for

respondent /petitioner-
appellant IL

Une. dua or

-42-