Case Title: State v. Quiday.

Citation: 

Docket Number: caap-13-0004085

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2016-06-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-13-0004085
21-JUN-2016
07:54 AM
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Hanawahine) was "assigned a nazcotic complaint number 12443,
which related that there were pakalolo’#! plants being grown at
94-325 Kahualena Street" in Waipahu, Hawai'i (Waipahu Residence) .

on October 22, 2012, by helicopter, Officer Hanawahine
conducted an aerial reconnaissance of the Waipahu Residence from
an estimated height of 420 feet. Officer Hanawahine attested
that he observed between twenty to twenty-five plants "with the
color and structure resembling that of marijuana plants” in two
rows on the Ewa? side of the residence,

Later on October 22, 2012, Officer Hanawahine conducted
ground reconnaissance of the Waipahu Residence. He attested that
the residence was the same residence that he had observed from
the helicopter but that he was unable to see the plants from
Kahualena Street. Officer Hanawahine checked with the State of
Hawai‘! Narcotics Enforcement Division (NED) to determine whether
the Waipahu Residence was an authorized location to cultivate
medical marijuana or if anyone associated with the address was a
medicinal marijuana permit holder.

On October 23, 2012, Officer Hanawahine again conducted
an aerial reconnaissance of the Waipahu Residence at a height
approximately 420 feet above ground and made the same
observations as he did the previous day. Also on October 23,
2012, NED informed Officer Hanawahine that the Waipahu Residence
was not listed as an authorized location to cultivate medicinal
marijuana nor were any’of the names associated with that address

 

gistered as current medicinal marijuana patients with valid
medicinal marijuana permits.

officer Hanawahine conducted a third aerial
reconnaissance of the Waipahu Residence before the end of
october.
on October 26, 2012, the District Court of the First

  

an, "Poka1S16" means marijuana. Sea Mary Kawene Pukul &
rey Hawaiian Dictionary at 304 (2d ed. 1986).

 

     

 

9 weya" ig a Hawaiian word used as a directional term, referring to the
direction of a place Located'co the wort of Honoluis. See Pukui s Elbert,
Hawaiian Dictionary at a2.
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Circuit’ approved a search warrant, $.W. 2012-261, for the
Waipahu Residence in order to search for marijuana plants,
related paraphernalia, and other evidence of narcotics
transactions.

on October 28, 2012, Sergeant Gregory Obara (Sergeant
bara) conducted a ground reconnaissance of the Waipahu Residence
and observed a man in the front Ewa corner of the property
appearing to be watering plants. Sergeant Obara saw the same man
a short time later watering plants on the Ewa side of the

residence. The plants were shielded from street view by gates,

 

walls, and fences surrounding the property.

On October 29, 2012, the Honolulu Police Department
(upp) executed the search warrant and found Quiday in possession
of marijuana with an aggregate weight of over three pounds, as
well as other dzug paraphernalia. Sergeant Obara identified
Quiday as the man he saw watering plants the day before. HED
recovered twenty plants resembling marijuana plants from the area
where Sergeant Obara observed Quiday watering plants.

on November 1, 2012, Plaintiff-Appellee State of
Hawai'i (State) charged Quiday with the offenses of conmercial
promotion of marijuana in the second degree, in violation of
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712-1249.5(1) (a) (2014 Repl.),*
and unlawful use of drug paraphernalia, in violation of HRS
§ 329-43.5(a) (2010 Repl.) .*

 

4 one Konorable Dean £. Ochial presided over the Sta
2 search warrant

cation for

 

5 was § 712-1249.5(1) (a) provides:

$712-1249.5 conneroiat pronotion of narijuang in the
the offense!

She second degree if

iguans heels’ an

  

(Format alt

 

© as § 329-43.5(a) provides

$329-43.5 Prohibited acts related to drug

paraphernalia, (a) Jt {8 unlawéal for any person Eo use, or

Perpessese with intest to use, drug paraprernaiia to plant,
(Continued...)

 

   

3
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On April 8, 2013, Quiday filed "(Quiday's] Motion to
Suppress Evidence" (Motion to Suppress Evidence). Quiday sought
to exclude “any and all evidence 5;

 

‘zed from his home, as 2
result of the execution of Search Warrant $.W. 2012-261" because:
(1) “[e}he anonymous tip triggering the investigation was not
reliable"; (2) "Officer Hanawahine's resulting illegal aerial
search violated [Quiday's] reasonable expectation of privacy";
and (3) "Officer Hanawahine omitted from his affidavit in support
of the search warrant relevant, significant findings relating to
his own credibility.”

on duly 24, 2013, the cixcuit court heard argument on
the Motion to Suppress Evidence and denied the motion on the
record.

On August 19, 2013, the circuit court issued its
“Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Denying
Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence.”

on August 26, 2013, Quiday filed a motion for the
cixcuit court's permission to file an interlocutory appeal. The
circuit court granted Quiday's motion on September 6, 2013.
Quiday filed hie notice of appeal on October 17, 2013.

IX, STANDARD OF REVIEW

An appellate court reviews "*the determination of

probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant‘ under the de

nove standard of review." State v, Detrov, 102 Hawai'i 13, 18,
72 B.3d 485, 490 (2003) (quoting State v. Navas, @1 Hawai'i 113,

123, 913 P.2d 39, 49 (1996)).
XIT, DISCUSSION
Quiday argues that the circuit court erroneously denied
his Motion te Suppress Evidence because the search warrant lacked

continued)
te, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound,

    

‘propa
Eonveet, (produce, process, prepare, eet, enaiysa, packr

Sepack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhi
Stherwise introduce into the hukan body's controlled
Substance in violation. pte

Glolates this section ie gutity of
Conviction nay be imprisoned pursuant to section 7
Shur if appropeiste as provided ae provides sn section 706-
Gel, Fines purscent to section 706-640,

4

 

   
     
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

probable cause. The Motion to Suppress Evidence challenged the
finding of probable cause on three grounds, which Quiday
reasserts on appeal: (1) the anonymous tip triggering
Anvestigation was not reliable; (2) the aerial search violated
Quiday's reasonable expectation of privacy; and (3) Officer
Hanawahine omitted from his affidavit significant prior findings
relating to his credibility.

The right of the people to be free from unreasonable
searches and seizures is firmly embedded in both the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1,
section 7 of the Hawai'i Constitution." Detroy, 102 Hawai'i at
21-22, 72 P.3d at 493-94.

"IA) search warrant may not issue except upon a finding
of probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.” Id. at 18,
72 P.3d at 490 (quoting State v. Decano, 60 Haw. 205, 209, 588
P.2d 909, 913 (1978)). “Probable cause exists when facts and
circumstances within one’s knowledge and of which one has
reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves
to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an
offense has been committed.” Detroy, 102 Hawai'i at 18, 72 P.3d
at 490 (quoting Navas, 81 Hawai'i at 116, 913 P.2d at 42).

A. Anonymous Tip

 

Quiday argues that the anonymous tip on which officer
Hanawahine acted was insufficient to support the issuance of a

search warrant because Officer Hanawahine's affidavit in support
of the State's request for a search warrant did not contain (1)
the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded

 

 

narcotics were where the informant claimed they were or (2) the
underlying eireumstances from which Officer Hanawahine concluded
the informant was credible and the informant's information was
reliable.

"[W)hen hearsay, such as an anonymous tip, is used to
establish probable cause, this court applies the two prong test

announced in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108. . . (1964), and
‘expounded upon in Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 . .

(1969)." Detroy, 102 Hawai'i at 18, 72 P.3d at 490.

5
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

     

12" cram which
Noose ieneity need not be
‘Of his informacion "reltasle.®

‘ying. cireunstance
Concluded that the infor
Siecloved, was Pezedtbs

  

 

Id. (block format altered) (emphasis and ellipsis omitted)
(quoting State v. Davenport, 55 Haw. 90, 93, 516 P.2d 65, 68
(1973)). "If the tip alone is found inadequate under Aguilar,
the other allegations which corroborate the information contained
in the hearsay report should then be considered." Id. at 19, 72
P.3d at 491 (citation, internal quotation marks, and brackets
omitted).

The State concedes the anonymous tip alone could not
form the basis of a search warrant, but must be corroborated by
other information contained in the report. We therefore turn to
whether Officer Hanavahine's observations corroborating the
information in the anonymous tip are sufficient to establish
probable cause.

B. Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Aerial Surveillance

Quiday challenges Officer Hanawahine's aerial
reconnaissance observations on the basis that they were
warrantless searches unsupported by probable cause because Quiday
had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his property.
the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution
The United States Constitution's Fourth Amendment
provides, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated(.]" U.S Const.
amend. IV. "'At the very core’ of the Fourth Amendment ‘stands
the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free
from unreasonable governmental intrusion.'" Kyilo v. United
States, $33 U.S. 27, 31 (2001) (citing Silverman v. United
States, 365 U.S. 505, 511 (1961)). Where the government intrudes
on an individual's private affairs, it becomes a “search and
seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Katz ve
United States, 389 U.S 347, 351-53 (1967).

In California v, Ciclo, 476 U.S. 207, 213 (1986), the

 

6
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

United States Supreme Court analyzed “whether naked-eye
observation of the [defendant's] curtilage by police from an
aircraft lawfully operating at an altitude of 1,000 feet violates
an expectation of privacy that is reasonable."” The Supreme
Court held that the defendant could not reasonably have expected
that his garden was protected from public or official inspection
from the air. id, at 211-214, According to the Ciraolo court,
public airways are similar to public highways and "the mere fact

 

that an individual has taken measures to restrict some views of
his activities" does not "preclude an officer's observations from
a public vantage point where he has a right to be and which
renders the activities clearly visible." Id. at 213.

In Florida vy. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989) (plurality
opinion), the United States Supreme Court examined whether
helicopter surveillance from an altitude of 400 feet, which
revealed marijuana growing in the defendant's partially covered
greenhouse, constituted a search requiring a warrant. A
plurality of the court concluded that the surveillance was not a
"search" for Fourth Amendment purposes, noting specifically that
there is no lower limit of the navigable airspace allowed to
helicopters and that flight by helicopters in public airways is
routine, Id. at 450-511 (noting, however,
different case if flying at that altitude had been contrary to
law or regulation."). “Any member of the public could legally
have been flying over [defendant's] property in a helicopter at
the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed [defendant's]
greenhouse." Id, at 451, The plurality noted that although the
defendant had shielded his marijuana from view at ground level,
because the roof was left partially open, the marijuana growing
inside was could be viewed from an aerial vantage point. Id.
‘Thus, the defendant could not reasonably have expected the
partially hidden contraband to be immune from being viewed from

 

je would have a

 

7st common em, the curtilage is the area to vnich extends the
intimate activity associated with the ‘sanctizy of eman's hone and the
of iter" B Ege, 466 U-s. 230, 180 (1384)
Tre b-8, 816, 630 (1806)).

  

 

7
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER,

the air. Id.

‘The United States Supreme Court has twice held that
aerial surveillance of private homes and surrounding as
not constitute a search where the area is not covered from aerial
view. Kylle, $33 U.S. at 33 (citing Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207;
Riley, 488 U.S. 445). We conclude that under federal law,
officer Hanawahine's aerial observation of Quiday's property was
not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendnent.
However, Hawai'i courts "are free to give broader privacy
protection than that given by the federal constitution." Detroy,
102 Hawai'i at 22, 72 P.3d at 494 (quoting State v. Mallan, 86
Hawai'i 440, 448, 950 P.2d 178, 186 (1998)).* As such, we turn
to whether Officer Hanawahine's aerial observation was a "search"
within the meaning of article I, section 7 of the Hawai'i

8 does

 

 

 

[T]t Se well-established that as long as ve afford defendants the
Eininus protection reqsized by the federal constitucion, we are
Fee to provice broader protection under our state constitution.

 

‘Eseate’ve Quine, 74 Haw. 161, 170, 840 P.2a 386, 362 (2992)]
felting duate-v. texoica, 50 Haw.’ 138, 142 n.2,'433 p.2d 393, 597
ned (agen) wenBowg, 77 Hawai’! $i, 57,882 8.28

jes alse
338, ‘Saa (1998) Jenpheatzing that ** (e)nen the United ‘states
Supfene Court's ineespratation of 9 provision present in both the
Eniisa'states and Hawai't Conatacutione does not adequately
preserve the rigits and intereste soughs to be protected, we will
Rot hesitate to recognize the sppropriase protection as 9 mtter
of stace constitutional law. *")s

 

 

 

In the area of searches and seizures under azticle 1,
gection'7, we have often exercised this freedon. “See, @.d.,
Gaing, "74" naw. at 170, 640 2-24 at 362 (dectining te adopt
Gerinition of seizure ongloyed by the United Staves
Suprene Court and, instead, choosing to afford greater
proteccion to the citizens of Hawai'i); State v. fin, 68
Baw. 206,,209-90, T11 P.2a 293-92 (808) (aecLining
Cov aopt’ the Zedecal standard and requiring police officers
£0 have a *ressonasle besis of specific articulable facts to
Betieve a cele haa been committed before ordering 2 driver
Eo gev out of the car after a traffic ston)? State y,
Tanaka, 6) Haw. 658, 661-62, 701 P.24 1274, 1276 (1985)
thotdtng on independent state grounds chat’ there is =
Heasonable expectation of privecy in trash bags and thos
isrrantlese seizure of then violates article I, section 7,
abeont exigent circunscances); Staze v. Fields, 67 Haw. 268,
262, 69g 8.24 1379, 1380. (1984) (providing broader
protection on the stave Level for probationers subject to
Sarrantless scare! 38 fa. 382, 367=63,
520 2.24 Sl, 91-58 (29741. (proviaing Broader protection
under articie I, section 7,"in the area of warranties
Searches incident to a valid custodial arrest than is
provided on the federal level)»

Skate v. Lopes, 78 Hawat'l 433, 445, 696 P.24 889, 902 (1995).
8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

 
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAW.

 

IREPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Constitution.

44, Article I, section 7 of the Hawai'i Constitution

Hawai'i's most significant cases examining the

propriety of aerial surveillance are instructive, but they do not
‘squarely address the dispositive issue in this case. We note
that these cases relied primarily on the interpretation of
whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy
under federal law, and not explicitly under article I, section 7
of the Hawai'i Constitution. In State v. Stachler, 58 Haw. 412,
570 P.2d 1323 (1977), the Hawai'i Supreme Court held thet a
defendant did not have a reasonablé expectation of privacy from
aerial observation of his marijuana patch, and therefore the
helicopter surveillance was not a search "in the constitutional
sense." Id. at 420, 570 P.2d at 1328-29. The supreme court
based its conclusion on findings from the lower court: (1) under
"atate law and Civil Aeronautics Board regulations, the police
ght"; (2)
there had been no “continued aerial harassment or prolonged

helicopter was flying at a lawful and reasonable

  

aerial ourveillance" of the defendant's property over hours or
days; (3) law enforcement’ had not employed "highly sophisticated
viewing devices"; and (4) that there were occasional helicopte:
flignts by the National Guard, crop dusters, and light aircrafts,
including tour, pleasure and business craft, that flew over the
area each day. Id, at 418-19, 570 P.2d at 1327-28 (footnote
omitted), ‘The supreme court held that the helicopter
surveillance of the marijuana patch fell into the "open view"
doctrine under federal law. Id. at 420, 570 P.2d at 1328-29.

In State v. Knight, 63 Haw. 90, 621 P.2d 370 (1980),
the Hawai's Supreme Court held that the defendant's premises and
appurtenances were in “open view" when police observed a
marijuana patch growing in an open field and, therefore,
defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy from aerial
reconnaissance. Id. at 93, 621 P.2d at 373. However, the police
used binoculars in order to view the contents of defendant's
greenhouse, which was covered by a shade cloth. Id. The supreme
court noted that the defendant's "premises were located in a

°
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST‘

 

HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

remote area, surrounded by vegetation and forest [and t]he
greenhouse was covered by materials so that the naked eye was
unable to observe what was therein." Id. at 93, 621 P.2d at 373-
74. This evidence, the supreme court concluded, "exhibited [the
defendant's] reasonable expectation of privacy," and therefore,
the use of binoculars “as a visual aid to the naked eye" violated
the defendant's expectation of privacy.* Id. The supreme court
suppressed the seized evidence as fruits of the poisonous tree.
Id, at 93, 621 P.2d at 374.

We test the constitutionality of warrantless aerial
surveillance under article I, section 7 of the Hawai's
Constitution with consideration of the relevant factors discussed
in Stachler and Knight, and of the recognized purposes of the
exclusionary rule. The factors discussed in Stachlex and
Knight are: (1) compliance with state and federal flight
regulations; (2) the targeted and prolonged nature of the aerial
surveillance; (3) the use of highly sophisticated viewing
devices; (4) th

 

frequency of other vehicles over the area; and
(5) the remote nature of and the vegetation surrounding the
observed property. See Knight, 63 Haw, at 93, 621 P.2d at 373-
74; Stachler, 58 Kaw. at 418-20, 570 P.2d at 1327-29. These
factors are balanced with principles underiying the exclusionary
rule: (1) to protect individual privacy; (2) to deter illegal
police conduct; and (3) to preserve the integrity of the
Judiciary. See State v. Torres, 125 Hawai'i 382, 394, 262 P.3d
1006, 1018 (2011).

Here, there is no evidence that Officer Hanawahine did

 

° tn State v. Holbson, 65 Haw. 152, 668 P.24 194 (1982), che Hawai'é
Supreme Court held that. "whe: fre sed only to confirm unaided
observations into an area wh on of

 
   

Privacy, the survelllence do
35a, 648 b.2a at 197

   

3 me Hawas's exclusionary rile departs from the federal exclusionary
in addition fo. secving the purpose of deterring governmental
‘ting gonstitut‘onal protections, che Sawait
‘the “equally valuable" purpose of protecting the
SEivecy eights of ilawai'i citizens. Lonez, 718 Hawaii ot 4¢6, 896 P.2d at 902.

10

 
 
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

not comply with state or federal flight regulations,” nor is
there evidence that Officer Hanawahine used the aid of a
sophisticated viewing device to view Quiday's marijuana plants.
There is also no evidence regarding the frequency of other
aircraft in that area.

‘There is, however, evidence that Officer Hanawahine's
flights were targeted and prolonged because he made three
targeted flights in fewer than four days, although the record is
unclear as to the details of the third flight. Targeted aerial
surveillance of a property is at odds with Hawai'i's
constitutional protections of individual privacy. Officer
Hanawahine claime in his affidavit that on October 22, 2012, he
unambiguously identified "about twenty to twenty five (20-25)
plants with the color and structure resembling that of marijuana
plants" based upon his "training and experience" of at least ten
years. The need for two more flights to confirm his observations
is unclear.

Additionally, the marijuana plants were located in the
curtilage of his home, and should be less susceptible to
warrantless “open view" searches. See People v, Cook, 710 P.2d
299, 303 (cal. 1985); but cf, Ciraole, 476 U.S. at 213 ("That
the area is within the cur

  

age does not itself bar all police
observation.").

At the hearing on Quiday's Motion to Suppress Evidence,
the circuit court noted that the relevant cases in which Hawai't
appellate courts have considered the use of aerial surveillance
of individual property are from 1980 or earlier. The circu

 

H guiaay argues chat officer Hanawahine violated 24 C.F.R § 92.119(b)
because Ofticer Hansuahine. fev below the 1000-foot floor. However, Quidey
jot forth no evidence showing chat Offscer Hanswanine aid not comply with 16
Gre.Re § 91-119(b) oF (dj, oF any other state or federal regulation:

 

 

 

% calitornia courts have made explicit the high privacy interest in the
seurtitage” of a ressdence, defined as "that zone mediately surrounding the
hone where its private interior 1ife can be expected to extend.” Cook, 710
Pola Se 302, (esting People v. idwarda, 456 2.20 713, 716 n.2 (1968). The
Galitornis Suprene court fas exprained, "One's yard may unavoidably be exposed
fo casual glances fron passing aircraft, but he may evili reasonably assune
Ehat it will not be intently examined by government agents who are flying over
Ee"for het specific purpose.” da, at 30%.

 

    

 

 
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

 

court stated, "This is 2013. Technology has changed, the world
has changed, and that what might have been considered, there
needs to be a definition of what sophisticated electronic
surveillance might be, as the definition may have changed as the
world has changed." In light of increasing technological
advances, we remain steadfast in our view that the article I,
section 7 of the Hawai'i Constitution protects individuals from
Intrusion of their right to privacy. See Kyllo, $33 0.8. at 33-
34 ("It would be foolish to contend that the degree of privacy
secured to citizens by the Fourth Amendment has been entirely
unaffected by the advance of technology."). ‘The California
Supreme Court observed the need for protection from governmental
intrusion in light of technological advance, stating

 

sorcenent, officers are
Wwancemechan ical

  
   
  

Sightewnicn has mes
point it does et Bi
Hiv travel does not excuse to fvom the delicate balancing of

 

arches
Striking chat bal eee. that
fan individual has a sxpectation of privacy from
Purposeful police surverilance of nis back yard from the
Birr We can concelve of no socictal or iaw enforcenent
Shterest strong enough to justify

on the sanctity of private residences.

    

  

   

Cook, 710 P.2d at 308. We agree, and interpret article I,
section 7 of the Hawai'i Constitution to protect an individual
from targeted aerial surveillance of the individual's residence
and its curtilage.

‘The circuit court erred in concluding that Quiday did
not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area
surrounding his house from aerial surveillance. The search
warrant for the Waipahu Residence was based upon an illegal
search by the police and the evidence seized pursuant to the
warrant was "fruit of the poisonous tree." See Knicht, 63 Haw.
at 93, 621 P.2d at 374. Because we vacate and remand on these
grounds, we need not address Quiday's remaining arguments on
appeal.

IV. coNcLUSION
Therefore, the "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,

12
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence’
entered on August 19, 2013 in the Circuit Court of the First
Circuit is vacated and and this case is remanded for proceedings
consistent with this Opinion.

on the briefs: bexfe
Jon N. Tkenaga °
Deputy Public Defender

for Defendant-Appel

Stephen K. Tsushina Loum th Oe
Deputy Bessecuting. Attorney

City and County of Honolulu
for Plaintiff-Appellee.

 

13