Opinion ID: 1288237
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inevitable discovery of the statements and waiver

Text: The prosecution next contends that the Hauanios were already the primary suspects in Sergeant Magnani's drug conspiracy investigation; thus, even if their statements and consents were tainted, it was inevitable that Magnani would contact the Hauanios at his earliest possible opportunity, advise them of their rights, obtain voluntary statements from them, and request consent to search places they occupied or obtain search warrants for those premises. At this point, we fail to see how the prosecution could possibly present the clear and convincing evidence that would be necessary to support its contention. Indeed, absent some sort of supernatural ability, there is simply no way to predict that a particular individual would have inevitably legally made the same statements that he or she made as a result of an illegal interrogation. Thus, because we believe that applying the inevitable discovery doctrine to oral statements, including confessions and consents to search, would amount to surmise and speculative inference see Pau`u, 72 Haw. at 512, 824 P.2d at 837, beyond that in which we are willing to engage at the expense of our constitution, we hold that it only applies to the admissibility of tangible physical evidence. [35] Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court did not err in suppressing the inculpatory statements of the Hauanios and the waivers of their rights to refuse consent to a search of the hotel room in which they were staying. We reach this holding on adequate and independent state grounds. See Rodriguez, 497 U.S. at 182, 110 S.Ct. at 2798; supra note 25.