Opinion ID: 2631901
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Detective Itomura's Elicitation Of Ketchum's Address

Text: With regard to Detective Itomura's request that Ketchum provide his address on the form indicating that he understood his relevant constitutional rights, the prosecution challenges the circuit court's COL Nos. 8 and 9 by arguing that Detective Itomura did not interrogate Ketchum because he did not design [the question] to elicit incriminating information. [29] Ketchum expressly indicated on the form that he did not wish to tell Detective Itomura what happened, thereby expressly invoking his right to remain silent. Nonetheless, Detective Itomura requested that Ketchum, inter alia, write his address on the form. That the request, according to Detective Itomura, wasn't a question, is irrelevant, inasmuch as the request called for a response and, at the very least, was the functional equivalent of express questioning, see, e.g., Ah Loo, 94 Hawai`i at 210, 10 P.3d at 731 (quoting Melemai, 64 Haw. at 481 n. 3, 643 P.2d at 544 n. 3 (quoting Innis, 446 U.S. at 300-301, 100 S.Ct. 1682)); State v. Pahio, 58 Haw. 323, 568 P.2d 1200 (1977) ([t]o determine whether the detective's statement was tantamount to a question, we must determine whether his statement asked for a response (discussing and citing Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 392, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 51 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977))). Moreover, Detective Itomura testified that, at the time he requested that Ketchum provide his residential address, he was fully aware that Ketchum's address was relevant to prosecuting him, specifically with regard to establishing that he constructively possessed the drug contraband discovered by Detective Towne. That being the case, Detective Itomura interrogated Ketchum despite Ketchum's invocation of his right to remain silent. Because the record clearly reflects that Ketchum did not waive this right, the circuit court rightly concluded that the waiver form was inadmissible at trial for the purposes of establishing Ketchum's residential address. Accordingly, the circuit court's COL Nos. 8 and 9 were not wrong.