Opinion ID: 1163237
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motivation is Irrelevant

Text: As previously stated, we agree with the concurring opinion that Mrs. Kahoonei's motivation for retrieving the evidence at issue is irrelevant to an analysis of whether she was acting as a government agent at the time she seized the handgun and ammunition from Kahoonei's bedroom. As aptly stated by Judge Acoba, such an examination is at best a speculative venture which may leave the mistaken impression that under these or similar facts a private person's implied motivation may somehow vitiate the precipitating conduct of the police. Kahoonei I, concurring op. at 223, 925 P.2d at 393. In our view, a private individual's subjective motivation would not address the fundamental concern of either the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution or article I, section 7 of the Hawai`i Constitution, that is, to curb unconstitutional activity by government agents. These constitutional provisions are not concerned with the subjective motivation of private individuals such as Mrs. Kahoonei. In other words, the focus of the inquiry is necessarily on the actions of the police officers; Mrs. Kahoonei's subjective reasons for participating in the search and seizure is irrelevant. A private individual may be a government agent, even if he or she is acting for personal reasons. Likewise, private individuals may be acting on their own, even if they erroneously believe they are acting as an agent of the police. For example, even if Mrs. Kahoonei's motivation in retrieving the gun was out of concern that the firearm might injure a member of her household, under the totality of the circumstances in this case, such concern would not excuse the action of the police if their conduct was significant or extensive enough to objectively render Mrs. Kahoonei a mere arm, tool, or instrumentality of the state. We note that the federal courts continue to consider the motivation of the private person when determining if an individual is a government agent. [8] However, [a]s the ultimate judicial tribunal in the state, this court possesses the final and unreviewable authority to interpret and enforce the Hawai`i Constitution. State v. Lopez, 78 Hawai`i 433, 445, 896 P.2d 889, 901 (1995) (citations omitted). In Lopez, we observed that, [i]n the area of searches and seizures under article I, section 7, we have often exercised this freedom. Id. Unlike the exclusionary rule on the federal level, Hawai`i's exclusionary rule serves not only to deter illegal police conduct, but to protect the privacy rights of our citizens. Id. Eliminating consideration of the subjective motivation of a private individual will serve to guard the privacy rights of Hawai`i's citizens against illegal government conduct  regardless of what a potential agent believes his or her role may be in conducting a search and seizure of evidentiary items. We therefore hold that, when determining whether, under the totality of the circumstances, governmental involvement in a particular instance is significant or extensive enough to render an otherwise private individual a mere arm, tool, or instrumentality of the state, the subjective motivation of the private actor is not a relevant concern under article I, section 7 of the Hawai`i Constitution.