Opinion ID: 4540255
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ikimaka’s motion to suppress

Text: On February 20, 2015, Ikimaka filed a pretrial motion to quash search warrant and suppress evidence (“motion to suppress”) for all evidence recovered from the truck. Ikimaka argued that the “automobile exception” did not justify the warrantless seizure of the truck because there was no reason to believe the purse might be removed or destroyed. Ikimaka also argued the truck’s seizure was unnecessary because he had volunteered to return Numazawa’s purse, citing the ICA’s holding in State v. Ramos, 93 Hawai‘i 502, 513, 6 P.3d 374, 385 (App. 2000), that “governmental intrusions into the personal privacy of citizens of this State be no greater in intensity than absolutely necessary under the circumstances.” Ikimaka further maintained that KPD only had probable cause to search the truck for Numazawa’s purse, not for drugs. Ikimaka also argued that the dog sniff constituted a “general (. . . continued) 660 and, if appropriate as provided in section 706–641, fined pursuant to section 706–640. 7  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  exploratory search” prohibited by State v. Groves, 65 Haw. 104, 649 P.2d 366 (1982). In its February 25, 2015 opposition memorandum, the State argued KPD had probable cause to believe that Ikimaka had committed theft and that evidence of the theft was in the truck based on Numazawa’s 911 call and Ikimaka’s statement to police that he had Numazawa’s purse in the truck. The State’s submissions also showed that on October 13, 2014, at around 5:39 a.m., Sergeant Nesbitt requested a “canine sniff” on the truck. At around 11:35 a.m., a KPD narcotics detector dog alerted to the presence of narcotics on the passenger’s side door of the truck. On October 14, 2014, Officer Hsu’s application for a warrant to search the truck, which was registered to a Natasha Lazaro (“Lazaro”), for Numazawa’s purse as well as “Methamphetamine, Heroin, Cocaine, Marijuana, and all of its various forms,” was approved. On October 15, 2014, Officer Hsu executed the search warrant on the truck. Officer Hsu found a maroon bag under the driver’s seat containing two glass tubes, $1,400 in cash, plastic bags containing white crystalline substances, a digital scale, and an Ace Hardware receipt bearing Ikimaka’s name. Officer Hsu also found a black purse on the floor of the passenger’s side containing Henderson’s driver’s license, a plastic bag containing a “green leafy substance resembling 8  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  marijuana,” and a plastic bag containing a white crystalline substance. He also found a “Dooney and Bourke” purse containing a glass pipe, a digital scale, plastic bags containing white crystalline substances, and IDs bearing Numazawa’s name. The State maintained that KPD was authorized to seize the truck pursuant to the automobile exception, and that exigent circumstances existed because “[i]f police had not seized the vehicle, there was an extremely high risk Ikimaka or Henderson would have moved, removed or destroyed the vehicle and/or evidence.” The State also asserted that a dog sniff “of the airspace around a closed container is not a Fourth Amendment or Article I, section 7 search,” citing State v. Snitkin, 67 Haw. 168, 171, 681 P.2d 980, 983 (1984), and Groves, 65 Haw. 104, 649 P.2d 366.
At the beginning of the April 2, 2015 hearing, the State took the position that no evidence should be presented on the dog sniff issue because it was “contained within the search warrant.” The circuit court agreed that “the review is based on the four corners of the warrant,” and stated it was not going to take evidence on the dog sniff. Citing Groves, 65 Haw. 104, 649 P.2d 366 and Snitkin, 67 Haw. 168, 681 P.2d 980, the circuit court found that the dog sniff of the airspace around the car 9  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  was appropriate, and it denied the motion to suppress regarding the use of the drug-sniffing dog. At the hearing, Ikimaka called Officers Hsu, Agbayani, and Telles as witnesses, who testified in relevant part to the following additional facts. On October 13, 2014 at around 2:33 a.m., Officer Hsu received information from dispatch about a 911 call made by Numazawa alleging that Ikimaka had struck her, taken her purse, and left in a gold Chevy truck from Kamalani Bridge. After stopping Ikimaka, Office Hsu asked Ikimaka and Henderson to exit the truck. It was “raining off and on.” At the time Officer Hsu stopped Ikimaka, KPD had not spoken with Numazawa. After approximately 30 minutes, Officer Tamagawa, who was familiar with Numazawa, and Officer Telles located Numazawa on the beach. The officers spoke with Numazawa, who told them Ikimaka took her purse and that she wanted it back. However, she did not want to press charges and did not want Ikimaka arrested. After Officer Hsu was informed through dispatch that Numazawa had been located and that Numazawa did not want to press charges, he contacted Sergeant Nesbitt. Officer Hsu and Sergeant Nesbitt determined they had probable cause to seize the truck for theft based on Numazawa’s 911 call and her statements to the police. Sergeant Nesbitt also mentioned to Officer Hsu 10  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  that Numazawa had a prior drug history. Sergeant Nesbitt told Officer Hsu that one reason to seize the truck was Numazawa’s drug history, but “the main reason was because of the theft that occurred.” The truck’s windows were down at the time of seizure. At that point in time, Officer Hsu did not think he had probable cause to seize the truck for drugs. Ikimaka asked if he could retrieve the purse from his vehicle and return it to Numazawa. Numazawa also later arrived at the scene and asked if she could retrieve the purse from the truck. However, Officer Hsu “wasn’t going to let [Ikimaka] go back in the vehicle to grab the purse” because KPD had already seized the vehicle as evidence. After the conversation with Sergeant Nesbitt, Officer Hsu told Ikimaka and Henderson that they were not being arrested today, and that they could go. However, Ikimaka chose to stay, and Officer Agbayani read him his Miranda rights. Ikimaka initially indicated he did not want to make a statement. However, he then apparently spontaneously said to Officer Agbayani, “I have [Numazawa’s] bag in my truck. Can you just arrest me for theft and don’t take my truck?”
The circuit court orally denied the motion to suppress on the grounds that KPD had probable cause to seize the truck and that the dog search was appropriate. On May 13, 2015, the 11  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  circuit court issued its written order denying Ikimaka’s motion to suppress. The circuit court determined that Officer Hsu had reasonable suspicion to stop Ikimaka, had probable cause to believe a theft had been committed, and that the automobile exception permitted KPD to seize the truck. The circuit court also determined that the dog sniff was permissible because Ikimaka “had no expectation of privacy in the airspace around his vehicle, and there was no inappropriate, dragnet search done.”