Opinion ID: 1392567
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Open View

Text: As noted above, in an open view sighting, a police officer observes something illicit from a public vantage point. There is no intrusion present because, in theory, the object or activity is something any member of the public could themselves observe. In Bonnell, this court noted that we have held that[,] where the object observed by the police is in open view, it is not subject to any reasonable expectation of privacy[,] and the observation is not within the scope of the constitution.... In the open view situation, ... the observation takes place from a non-intrusive vantage point. The governmental agent is either on the outside looking outside or on the outside looking inside [at] that which is knowingly exposed to the public. Bonnell, 75 Haw. at 144, 856 P.2d at 1276 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In legitimate open view sightings, the warrantless seizure of the evidence in question depends on whether the item is in a constitutionally protected area. If the evidence is not in an area where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, that is, if it is located in a common space, such evidence is subject to seizure by the governmental agent who spots it, without the necessity of a warrant or exigent circumstances. If a police [officer] sees probable evidence in open view in a constitutionally non-protected area, he [or she] may, of course, seize it[.] He [or she] seizes it because there is no constitutional provision to gainsay the seizure. State v. Hook, 60 Haw. 197, 201, 587 P.2d 1224, 1228 (1978) (citation omitted). However, if the evidence in question is in open view in an area in which the evidence retains its constitutional protection, a warrant is required or exigent circumstances must exist before the object may be seized. Visibility of contraband within constitutionally protected premises is not enough to justify entry and seizure without a warrant. Id. at 202, 587 P.2d at 1228. In attempting to define exigent circumstances, this court in Clark stated: [although] the term exigent circumstances is incapable of precise definition, generally speaking ... it may be said to exist when the demands of the occasion reasonably call for an immediate police response. More specifically, it includes situations presenting an immediate danger to life or of serious injury or an immediate threatened removal or destruction of evidence. However, the burden, of course, is upon the government to prove the justification.... Clark, 65 Haw. at 494, 654 P.2d at 360 (internal citations and brackets omitted). In Kapoi, following a valid arrest and after the booking process, the police returned to the scene of the arrest where the defendant's vehicle was parked. The police had received a call while at the station that, prior to the defendant's arrest, he had been carrying a handgun. Because of the darkness of the early morning hour, the officer surveyed the interior of the vehicle with the aid of a flashlight through the vehicle's window. The officer observed the butt of a handgun protruding from a holster that was on the floor of the vehicle. The officer returned to the station, retrieved the keys for the defendant's vehicle, and, upon returning to the scene, opened the locked door and seized the handgun. Acknowledging the distinction between open view and plain view, the Kapoi court determined that the handgun was in open view because the officer was on the outside looking inside [at] that which ... [was] knowingly exposed to the public. Kapoi, 64 Haw. at 140, 637 P.2d at 1113 (citation omitted). The court stated: Hence, his observation of the weapon was not subject to constitutional considerations. Furthermore, the fact that the visual inspection was aided by a flashlight did not convert the scan of the vehicle's interior into a constitutionally regulated search. ... But even the open view of possible contraband, without more, furnished no basis for its seizure without a warrant. For no amount of probable cause can justify a warrantless search or seizure absent `exigent circumstances.' Thus, we are compelled to examine the circumstances in which the officer found himself to determine whether the exigencies of the moment were such as to sustain his decision to seize the gun without a judge's concurrence. Id. at 140-43, 637 P.2d at 1113-14 (internal citations and footnotes omitted). In concluding that the seizure of the handgun did not breach constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures, the court described the circumstances that it believed demonstrated the exigency of the situation: The car was exposed to public view; there was a foreseeable risk that the evidence it sheltered might be removed before a warrant could be sought some hours later. Moreover, the object in question was a firearm likely to draw the attention of possible intruders in a neighborhood considered a trouble spot by the police.... [T]he threat to public safety engendered by the situation also causes us to consider the officer's actions reasonable. Id. at 143, 637 P.2d at 1115 (citation omitted).