Opinion ID: 4536960
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Order Granting the Motion to Dismiss

Text: The circuit court orally granted Enos’s motion and issued a written order (Order) two weeks later. In the Order, the circuit court made eleven Findings of Fact (FOF): 1. On January 21, 2018, Honolulu Police Officer Albert Moniz (Officer Moniz) found Defendant laying in a cardboard box. 2. It [is] undisputed that Defendant is well-known to Officer Moniz as a homeless person. Officer Moniz and Defendant had multiple prior interactions in that regard. 3. Officer Moniz discovered a pouch containing a glass pipe and zip packet in a homeless encampment, located five (5) feet away from Defendant, not inside the cardboard box. 7 These convictions were thirteen and eighteen years old respectively, which Enos pointed out at the hearing. 10  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  4. While Defendant did try to conceal the pouch containing the pipe and the packet, Defendant repeatedly told Officer Moniz that it did not belong to him and it belonged to his friend. 5. No other drug paraphernalia was found on Defendant’s person. 6. The Defendant told officers he had nowhere else to go and that was why he was camped out at that location. 7. Officer Moniz initially appended [sic] and arrested Defendant for Trespassing on State Lands in violation of section 708-814.7 of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS). 8. Officer Moniz recovered the glass pipe and zip packet. 9. The contents of the glass pipe and zip packet were tested by [an] HPD criminalist . . . . 10. [The] HPD Criminalist . . . determined that the substance in the pipe and packet at issue weighed a combined .005 grams and contained methamphetamine. 11. On March 25, 2002, Dr. Kevin Ho, a qualified expert in the field of Pharmacy, testified that .0025 grams of inhaled methamphetamine is capable of producing a physiological or euphoric effect. Next, in its Conclusions of Law (COLs), the court concluded that .005 grams “meets the criteria for illicit use.” The court cited several of our cases that found as little as .002 grams of residue to be more than de minimis, at least absent other attendant circumstances. See, e.g., State v. Carmichael, 99 Hawai#i 75, 80, 53 P.3d 214, 219 (2002). In light of the defendant’s burden of proof, the court also stated that “[n]o evidence was presented to support defense’s challenge that no purity analysis was done to determine what portion of the .005 [grams of] substance actually constituted methamphetamine.” However, the court found that the offense was 11  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  nonetheless de minimis. Citing State v. Fukagawa, the court defined its task as determining whether “the defendant’s conduct caused or threatened the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense sufficiently to warrant the condemnation of conviction.” 100 Hawai#i 498, 505, 60 P.3d 899, 906 (2002). As to the charging statute, HRS § 712-1243, the court found that this law “proscribes the use and sale of illicit drugs” in order “to address ‘related social harms, including property and violent crimes,’” again quoting Fukagawa, 100 Hawai#i at 504–05, 60 P.3d at 905–06. Addressing the relevant attendant circumstances, the court found that the pipe and pouch “were not found on the defendant’s person, but on the ground, five feet away from the cardboard box that the defendant was lying in.” Likewise, “[n]o other paraphernalia was found on defendant’s person.” In addition, Enos was not “engaged in nor suspected of engaging in any violent activity” nor was he “committing a crime against the property of another, such as theft, burglary, or property damage.” Accordingly, the court determined that these circumstances “do not support a finding of illicit use or intent for illicit use.” Concerning HRS § 708-814.7,8 the court concluded that 8 HRS § 708-814.7 provides in relevant part: (1) [With the exception of certain state property,] a person commits the offense of criminal trespass onto state lands if: (continued...) 12  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  Criminal Trespass onto State Lands “is not a property crime consistent with the legislative intent criminalizing the possession of any amount of illicit drugs.” The court pointed to § 708-814.7(4), which provides: “No conviction under this section shall be used to establish a felony conviction under section 708803.” In turn, HRS § 708-803 (Supp. 2016) covers habitual property crimes. From § 708-814.7(4), the court concluded that Criminal Trespass onto State Lands “is specifically exempted from being a property crime, even though it is contained with Chapter 708, which deals with offenses against property rights.” The court also noted that the legislative history of § 708-814.7 “indicates a concern that the statute not be used to punish or criminalize homelessness.” Accordingly, it would be inconsistent with that intent to construe Criminal Trespass onto State Lands, the commission of which “ar[ose] out of [Enos’s] homelessness situation” in the instant case, as a property crime for determining whether Enos’s drug offense was de minimis. The circuit court concluded that, in light of all the attendant circumstances, Enos “did not cause or threaten the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining [Possession of 8 (...continued) . . . (b) The person enters or remains unlawfully in or upon any state land on or under any highway, and the state land has a sign or signs displayed upon the land that are sufficient to give reasonable notice that read: “Government Property - No Trespassing”; . . . . (4) No conviction under this section shall be used to establish a felony conviction under section 708-803. 13  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree] sufficient to warrant the condemnation of conviction.” The circuit court thus granted Enos’s Motion to Dismiss.