Opinion ID: 1163316
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Warrantless Seizure of the Gun

Text: It is uncontroverted that Pulse resided on the boat where the gun was seized, and, therefore, that Pulse had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his boat protected by the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 7, of the Hawai`i Constitution, against unreasonable searches and seizures. Cf. State v. Paahana, 66 Haw. 499, 504, 666 P.2d 592, 596 (1983) (holding that defendant had legitimate expectation of privacy in laundry room near defendant's home); Alward v. State, 112 Nev. 141, 912 P.2d 243, 248-49 (1996) (holding that defendant had legitimate expectation of privacy in a tent located on a public campground). A warrantless search of a premises in which a defendant has a legitimate expectation of privacy is presumptively unreasonable. State v. Lopez, 78 Hawai`i, 433, 442, 896 P.2d 889, 898 (1995); see also State v. Wallace, 80 Hawai`i 382, 393, 910 P.2d 695, 706 (1996). The [prosecution] has the burden of overcoming [the] initial presumption of unreasonableness by proving that the search falls within one of the well-recognized and narrowly-defined exceptions to the general warrant requirements[.] Lopez, 78 Hawai`i at 443, 896 P.2d at 899 (quoting Paahana, 66 Haw. at 504, 666 P.2d at 596); see also Wallace, 80 Hawai`i at 393, 910 P.2d at 706. One such well-recognized and narrowly-defined exception to the warrant requirement occurs when the government has probable cause to search and exigent circumstances exist necessitating immediate police action. State v. Clark, 65 Haw. 488, 494, 654 P.2d 355, 360 (1982) (citations omitted). Probable cause [to search] exists when the facts and circumstances within one's knowledge and of which one has reasonable trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been committed. State v. Navas, 81 Hawai`i 113, 116, 913 P.2d 39, 42 (1996) (citation omitted). We hold that Cartagena's identification of Pulse as the person who terrorized him with a gun gave the officers sufficient probable cause to believe that Pulse had committed a crime. We next consider whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry and seizure of the gun. The exigent circumstances exception exists 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 serious injury or an immediate threatened removal or destruction of evidence. However, the burden, of course, is upon the government to prove the justification. . ., and whether the requisite conditions exist is to be measured from the totality of the circumstances. And in seeking to meet this burden, the police must be able to point to specific and articulable facts from which it may be determined that the action they took was necessitated by the exigencies of the situation. Clark, 65 Haw. at 494, 654 P.2d at 360 (internal citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). In this case, the evidence presented at the suppression hearing (assuming that the evidence was properly adduced, see section II.F.2. of this opinion) clearly demonstrated that, based on the totality of the circumstances, Officer Mariani reasonably believed that Pulse posed an imminent danger to everyone in the vicinity. The record reveals that, upon arrival at the scene of the incident, Officer Mariani was informed that Pulse had just terrorized Cartagena with a gun and that Pulse appeared inebriated. Cognizant of these facts, Officer Mariani and the other officers walked to the finger pier outside Pulse's boat. From this vantage point, Officer Mariani peered into the cabin of the boat and saw Pulse sleeping with what appeared to be the butt of a handgun beside him. Mariani alerted the other officers, and when Pulse began to stir in his sleep, Mariani boarded the boat to secure the gun for the safety of Pulse, the officers, and the public. Based on these facts, particularly Officer Mariani's observation of Pulse stirring in his sleep with a gun within his immediate reach and control, the circuit court could have properly concluded that there were sufficient exigent circumstances present to justify the warrantless entry and seizure of the gun.