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

Heading: Mrs. Kahoonei Was a Government Agent

Text: Under the totality of the circumstances of this case, we hold that Mrs. Kahoonei was acting as a government agent when she retrieved the handgun and ammunition from Kahoonei's bedroom. It is clear, under the facts of this case, that the idea of retrieving the evidentiary items did not originate with Mrs. Kahoonei. It is undisputed that Sergeant Lenchanko told Mrs. Kahoonei and Tamanaha that a search warrant could be gotten to search the house and that a search would be done anyway. We agree with Judge Acoba that [i]t is obvious the purpose of the police statements was to convince the two women to retrieve the gun for the police without the aid of a warrant, thus absolving the police of any possible illegality in the recovery of the gun. Kahoonei I, concurring op. at ___, 925 P.2d at 393. Most importantly, when officer Akina accompanied Mrs. Kahoonei to Kahoonei's bedroom and stood in the doorway watching her retrieve the handgun and ammunition, officer Akina knew that Mrs. Kahoonei was engaging in an activity that a police officer could not effect without a search warrant. See Alston v. United States, 518 A.2d 439, 442 (D.C.App.1986) (A private individual may become an agent or instrumentality of the state ... if the government is involved in the development of a plan which is later carried out by private persons, or stands by while a private citizen seizes the desired evidence.  (Citations, internal quotation marks, and internal brackets omitted.) (Emphasis added.)); People v. North, 29 Cal.3d 509, 174 Cal.Rptr. 511, 514, 629 P.2d 19, 22 (1981) ([T]he police need not have requested or directed the search in order to be guilty of standing idly by; knowledge of the illegal search coupled with a failure to protect [a defendant's] rights against such a search suffices. (Citation and internal quotation marks omitted.) (Emphasis in original.)). In this case, the police were standing by while a private individual engaged in a search that the police would otherwise need a warrant to effectuate. In our view, under the totality of the circumstances, the governmental involvement was significant and extensive enough to render Mrs. Kahoonei an instrumentality of the state. Thus, regardless of her subjective motivation, Mrs. Kahoonei was acting as an agent of the police. See People in Interest of P.E.A., 754 P.2d 382, 385 (Colo.1988) (The agency rule prevents police from circumventing the fourth amendment by having a private individual conduct a search or make a seizure that would be unlawful if performed by the police themselves. (Citation omitted.)). Under the circumstances of this case, we believe it was incumbent upon the police to obtain a search warrant rather than utilize a private citizen. See Moody v. United States, 163 A.2d 337, 340 (D.C.Mun.App.1960) (The officer certainly recognized the evidentiary value of the goods themselves. He could not therefore escape the necessity of obtaining a search warrant[.]). To hold otherwise would needlessly erode one of the fundamental objectives of the fourth amendment and article I, section 7 of the Hawai`i Constitution, that is, to deter government agents from bypassing the warrant requirement.