Opinion ID: 1191403
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: proffered justifications for the search

Text: The State suggests two basic theories to support the legality of the search in this case by characterizing it as (1) a search incident to a lawful arrest, or (2) a pre-incarceration search. We note at the outset that since it was conducted without a warrant, the search carries an initial presumption of unreasonableness. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). To overcome this presumption, the State must show that the facts of the case justified the police in searching without a warrant and that the search itself was no broader than necessary to satisfy the need which legitimized departure from the warrant requirement in the first place. See e.g., Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291, 295, 93 S.Ct. 2000, 36 L.Ed.2d 900, 2003 (1973) (the scope of a warrantless search must be commensurate with the rationale that excepts the search from the warrant requirement). This principle has been so often reiterated that until recently it was thought to be an immutable corollary of the fourth amendment right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. It clearly is and has been a principle impliedly rooted in article I, section 5 of the Hawaii Constitution, which provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches, seizures, and invasions of privacy shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized or the communications sought to be intercepted. See State v. Dias, 52 Haw. 100, 107, 470 P.2d 510, 514-515 (1970). Cognizant of this tenet that the scope of a warrantless search must be strictly tailored to the reasons for allowing it, we consider the exceptions to the warrant requirement cited by the State and their applicability to the facts of this case.