Opinion ID: 2517375
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the Servantes case

Text: This court, in State v. Servantes, 72 Haw. 35, 804 P.2d 1347 (1991), had an opportunity to apply the test announced by the Carroll court. In Servantes, a police officer observed a passenger in the defendant's car smoking a marijuana cigarette. Id. at 36, 804 P.2d at 1348. After ordering the passenger out of the car, the police officers discovered a bag of marijuana in plain view on the driver's side of the car next to the defendant's foot. Id. The bag was seized, and the defendant and the passenger were arrested for promoting a detrimental drug in the third degree, a misdemeanor. Id. at 36-37, 804 P.2d at 1348. The defendant's car was towed to the police station; four days later, after obtaining a search warrant, the police discovered and seized cocaine and drug paraphernalia from the vehicle. Id. at 37, 804 P.2d at 1348. The defendant was arrested and charged with promoting a dangerous drug in the third degree and possession with intent to use drug paraphernalia, both class C felonies. Id. The defendant entered a nolo contendere plea to the misdemeanor charge and was sentenced. Id. Subsequently, the defendant moved to dismiss the felony indictment on the grounds that HRS §§ 701-111(1)(b) and 701-109(2) barred the prosecution from proceeding on the felony charges. Id. The circuit court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the marijuana offense occurred at a different time, place and circumstances from the felony offenses. Id. This court, in reversing the trial court's ruling, stated that: In Carroll, we reasoned that defendant's possession of the [m]ace continued until the discovery and identification at the police station. Prior to identifying the [m]ace, the facts and circumstances known to the first officer did not afford probable cause to believe that an offense other than attempted criminal property damage had been committed. Here, [the defendant] lost possession of both the marijuana and cocaine when he was arrested and his car seized. Most importantly, police had probable cause at the time of [the defendant's] arrest on the marijuana offense to suspect [the defendant] of possession of additional illegal drugs. Furthermore, we cannot ignore that [the defendant's] motion, filed previous to trial, to suppress the evidence seized from his car is obviously part of the trial proceedings. In the course of the suppression hearing, the [prosecution] would have to refer to a factual account of the misdemeanor offense in order to support probable cause for the search. A fortiori, the felony charge cannot be tried without mention of the misdemeanor offenses. Id. at 39, 804 P.2d at 1349 (emphases added). Accordingly, this court held that the [prosecution] was barred under [HRS] § 701-109(2) from prosecuting [the defendant] for the felony offense[of possession of cocaine] by his conviction on the misdemeanor marijuana possession charge. Id.