Opinion ID: 4412702
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Officer Wilson’s Testimony

Text: Officer Wilson testified that when he arrived at 2801 Coconut Avenue, he initially saw Weldon, “several bottles, uh, a barbecue, and some meat that had been barbecued . . . [and] several backpacks.” He stated that the glass bottles were empty, and “they appeared to be of the alcoholic type beverage and maybe some soda bottles.” Officer Wilson testified that when he arrived on the scene, he initially observed Weldon lying down on the “concrete pad.” Officer Wilson stated that “basically we approached, we asked for ID, tried to identify who this is.” He explained that “we” referred to Officer Heyworth, himself, and a third officer who arrived shortly after. When Weldon failed to comply with Officer Heyworth’s instruction that he “not go into his bag,” Officer Wilson testified that he pulled the bag away from Weldon, and he “immediately recognized in [Weldon’s] right hand a collapsible baton.” Officer Wilson testified that Weldon “pulled his right hand back with the baton. At that time it extended.” On cross-examination, when shown the same photograph of the area as shown to Officer Heyworth, Officer Wilson indicated that Weldon had been lying down in the middle of the photograph. He also stated that the charcoal type grill and the glass bottles 9  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  were on Weldon’s left, and the backpacks on Weldon’s right.6 When asked why he approached Weldon, Officer Wilson replied, “we were in the area making routine checks identifying people. Uh, we could do it – at that time we were doing it, uh, daily.” Officer Wilson also stated that while Weldon was brandishing the baton, he was sitting up, and “[h]is legs were still forward flat on the concrete.” On recross-examination, Officer Wilson testified that while tenants of the apartment building above the concrete wall could access a locked gate that led into the apartment, “you can’t, um, stop access to the beach area.” Officer Wilson stated that he was not sure whether there were signs on the wall denoting that the area was private property, or stating “keep off this wall.” Officer Wilson further testified that no trespass case was created against Weldon. 3. Circuit Court Order Granting Motion to Suppress During closing arguments, the State and defense counsel disputed whether the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that Weldon was engaged in criminal activity. The State argued that the officers had individualized suspicion to approach Weldon to investigate possible criminal activity. Defense counsel 6 This appears to contradict Officer Heyworth’s testimony, in which he stated that he did not see any physical barbecue grill, but just some remaining embers from a fire. 10  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  countered that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to approach Weldon because “there’s nothing in evidence to show that Mr. Weldon is connected in time to these, you know, bottles or grill.” Defense counsel also stated that when the officers approached Weldon, they did not inquire whether the items were his, but first asked for his identification. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court orally granted Weldon’s Motion to Suppress. The circuit court entered its written Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence (Order Granting Motion to Suppress) on July 8, 2014. Therein, the circuit court made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: 1. Police officers may stop and detain an individual if the officers have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped was engaged in criminal conduct. 2. Police officers, in that situation, must be able to point to specific articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. 3. In this case, there was reasonable suspicion for the police officers to approach Defendant and investigate based upon the past complaints of criminal activity in the area and the proximity of bottles, cooked meat, and extinguished fire to Defendant. 4. However once detained there was no reasonable suspicion for the police officers to search Defendant’s backpack based on the articulable facts and circumstances known at that time. 5. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence is granted. 11  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  Stated differently, while the circuit court determined that the officers had reasonable suspicion to approach Weldon and inquire as to the items located around him, the circuit court concluded that the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to subsequently search Weldon’s backpack.