Opinion ID: 1312386
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: switchblade knife suppression.

Text: State maintains that the ICA dissenting opinion correctly interpreted the governing Hawaii caselaw to permit a pat-down search of any arrestee prior to the transport for booking at the police station. Reed counters that 1) a per se rule allowing a protective pat-down search for weapons, escape instrumentalities, or contraband in every arrest should not be adopted; and 2) the instant pat-down frisk by Officer DeAguiar clearly exceeded the limited scope of a valid examination anyway. Here, no real question exists that Officer DeAguiar possessed reasonable grounds to detain Reed for investigation, after witnessing the apparent assault on the woman, under the rule established in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). See State v. Kim, 68 Haw. ___, 711 P.2d 1291 (1985). [2] We must therefore focus on the legality of the pat-down search based on the principle that warrantless searches are presumed to be unreasonable unless justified by a specific exception to the warrant requirement. State v. Ritte, 68 Haw. ___, 710 P.2d 1197 (1985); see State v. Biggar, 68 Haw. ___, 716 P.2d 493 (1986). We begin our discussion with State v. Enos, 68 Haw. ___, 720 P.2d 1012 (1986), where the investigating police officer arrested the defendant for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor pursuant to HRS § 291-4(a) (Supp. 1984), conducted a pat-down frisk, felt what appeared to be cellophane packets in the defendant's left front pants pocket, suspected that the packets might contain contraband based on prior narcotics investigations, removed the pocket contents, discovered cocaine, and arrested the defendant for the third-degree promotion of dangerous drugs under HRS § 712-1243 (1976). On appeal, we reversed the drug conviction ruling that the pat-down search was too expansive and unjustified by the circumstances: We have repeatedly upheld the right of an officer making an arrest to take reasonable and appropriate steps to protect himself from possible weapons to which the arrestee may have access. State v. Barrett, 67 Haw. 650, 701 P.2d 1277 (1985); State v. Ortiz, 67 Haw. 181, 683 P.2d 822 (1984); State v. Kaluna, supra [55 Haw. 361, 520 P.2d 51 (1974)]. We think it clear that on an arrest for drunken driving, it is per se reasonable for an officer to conduct a pat-down for weapons. Here, the officer found no weapons. On this record, there was nothing to indicate that there were, concealed on the person of appellant, any fruits or instrumentalities of the crime of drunken driving. Given the finding by the court, which was in accord with the testimony, that the officer was without any prior knowledge or suspicion of the existence of contraband, the warrantless search and seizure, beyond the pat-down for weapons, violated appellant's rights under the Constitution of the State of Hawaii. The order denying a suppression of the four cellophane packets was error. Enos, 68 Haw. at ___, 720 P.2d at 1014 (emphasis added). Enos explicitly held that, while a pat-down search of an arrestee is per se proper to reveal any weapons, escape instrumentalities, or contraband, the search there went beyond the permissible scope because the investigating police officer had no basis to intrude into the defendant's pocket. Id. at ___, 720 P.2d at 1014-15. Merely conjecturing that the defendant might have drugs in the cellophane packets was not enough. Cf. State v. Kuba, 68 Haw. ___, 706 P.2d 1305 (1985). Similarly in State v. Kaluna, 55 Haw. 361, 520 P.2d 51 (1974), the supervising police officer administered a simultaneous search incident to arrest plus preincarceration search, ordered the defendant to strip down to her underwear, accepted a folded piece of tissue paper from the defendant, opened the tissue although having no idea what was inside, and discovered the barbituate Seconal. We affirmed the order suppressing the barbituate where the search, motivated by curiosity and not any legitimate purpose, exceeded the bounds necessary to detect weapons, escape instrumentalities, or contraband. Id. at 370-71, 520 P.2d at 59 (citing State v. Hanawahine, 50 Haw. 461, 464, 443 P.2d 149, 151-52 (1968)). We also emphasized that once the tissue paper was in the police officer's exclusive control, there was no further danger that the defendant could use the contents to perpetrate some harm. Kaluna, 55 Haw. at 371, 520 P.2d at 59. The searches in Enos and Kaluna were thus improper because the investigating police officers lacked any legal grounds to invade the defendants' privacy. Speculation or curiosity cannot provide the sole basis to legitimize warrantless searches or seizures. Cf. State v. Jensen, 69 Haw. ___, 750 P.2d 932 (1988) (per curiam); State v. Jerome, 69 Haw. ___, 736 P.2d 438 (1987). In the present case, by contrast, Officer DeAguiar did not engage in a general exploration of Reed's pockets but instead correctly made a limited frisk, felt the knife in Reed's right rear pants pocket, and extracted the weapon. See Transcript of March 23, 1987 at 8. Notwithstanding that Officer DeAguiar had no specific suspicion that Reed was armed, we view the warrantless, limited pat-down search after a valid arrest for weapons, escape instrumentalities, or contraband as reasonable and necessary for the arresting police officer's safety. See State v. Clark, 65 Haw. 488, 654 P.2d 355 (1982); cf. State v. Ortiz, 67 Haw. 181, 683 P.2d 822 (1984). This type of search is not dependent on the nature of the crime or the circumstances of the arrest. Relying on State v. Rosborough, 62 Haw. 238, 615 P.2d 84 (1980), the ICA majority, however, ruled that the pat-down search was improper. In Rosborough, the investigating police officers arrested the defendant for drug trafficking, seized his footlocker (which was known to contain marijuana), frisked the defendant, seized a safety matchbox from the defendant's right front pants pocket, opened the matchbox to discover marijuana, and conducted a warrantless search of the footlocker to find more marijuana. Id. at 239-40, 615 P.2d at 85. We affirmed the order suppressing all the marijuana since 1) no exigency excused the failure to obtain warrants once the police gained exclusive control of the containers and the defendant had no possibility of getting access; plus 2) no information existed that the matchbox concealed marijuana, so the search incident to arrest exception was inapplicable. Id. at 243-45, 615 P.2d at 88. Rosborough was premised on the inexcusable mistake in not acquiring warrants although the police officers had eliminated any danger by isolating the defendant from the containers such that no exigency mandated immediate warrantless searches. Although the closed containers could have been confiscated for safekeeping, search warrants were required to look through them. See State v. Wong, 68 Haw. ___, 708 P.2d 825 (1985) (per curiam). Rosborough is hence inapplicable to the switchblade knife which was not a closed container opened without a warrant, was within Reed's grasp, and so was lawfully seized. But we emphatically reiterate, however, that we will not condone any impermissibly broad, unreasonable, warrantless searches of arrestees or their possessions which 1) are not supported by specific, recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement; or 2) constitute unlawful attempts to circumvent the controlling constitutional protections. State v. Wiley, 69 Haw. ___, 752 P.2d 102 (1988); see also State v. Kelly, 68 Haw. ___, 708 P.2d 820 (1985). We thus hold that it is per se reasonable for the arresting police officers to conduct a warrantless, limited pat-down search of an arrestee's person and the area under the arrestee's immediate control for weapons, escape instrumentalities, or contraband.