Court Opinion

ID: 9632693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:22:00.493824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:58:35.848551
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION BY
LEVINSON, J.
I enthusiastically concur in the holdings of the cogently reasoned majority opinion that a seizure took place in this case within the meaning of article I, section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution, that Quino was unlawfully seized without his consent, and that, on the record before us, the conduct of the police therefore violated article I, section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution. But in light of the surreal and Orwellian world of Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983), California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 111 S. Ct. 1547 (1991), and Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. _, 111 S. Ct. 2382 (1991), in which the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution seems to have *177atrophied to the condition of a vestigial organ, I believe that more needs to be said.
Article I, section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution1 protects people from unreasonable government intrusions into their legitimate expectations of privacy. State v. Clark, 65 Haw. 488, 493, 654 P.2d 355, 359 (1982); see also State v. Fields, 67 Haw. 268, 282, 686 P.2d 1379, 1390 (1984). And, as “the ultimate judicial tribunal in this state,” this court has final, unreviewable authority to interpret and enforce the Hawaii Constitution. Fields, 67 Haw. at 282, 686 P.2d at 1390.2 “ ‘The basic purpose . . . [of these constitutional provisions] is to safeguard the *178privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by government officials.’ Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 528 (1967). The constitutional proscription . .. that the person and effects of an individuals [sic] are considered to be sacrosanct and may not be the object of unreasonable searches and seizures ... draws no distinction in its application between an individual suspected of criminal activity and one who is not.” Nakamoto v. Fasi, 64 Haw. 17, 20, 635 P.2d 946, 950 (1981) (brackets in original). Thus, article I, section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution was “designed to protect the individual from arbitrary, oppressive, and harassing conduct on the part of government officials.” Fasi, 64 Haw. at 23, 635 P.2d at 952.
In State v. Melear, 63 Haw. 488, 630 P.2d 619 (1981), this court delineated the circumstances under which the police may properly conduct an investigative stop of an individual:
It is well established that a law enforcement officer may “in appropriate circumstances and in [an] appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22 *179(1968); State v. Barnes, 58 Haw. 333, 337, 568 P.2d 1207, 1211 (1977). We stated in State v. Barnes, supra, at 338, 568 P.2d at 1211:
To justify an investigative stop, short of an arrest based on probable cause, “the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.” The ultimate test in these situations [is] whether [] a man of reasonable caution would be warranted in believing that criminal activity was afoot and that the action taken was appropriate. (Citations omitted.)
63 Haw. at 493, 630 P.2d at 624 (emphasis added).
It is precisely because article I, section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution was designed, among other things, “ ‘to safeguard the privacy ... of individuals against arbitrary invasions’ ” and “arbitrary, oppressive, and harassing conduct” by the police, Fasi, 64 Haw. at 20, 23, 635 P.2d at 950, 952, that we have conditioned an investigative stop on the police officer’s capacity “ ‘to point to specific and articulable facts ...’ [warranting a reasonable belief] that criminal activity [is] afoot.” Melear, 63 Haw. at 493, 630 P.2d at 624. To require otherwise would be to invite the very sort of “staged” and “pretextual” police-citizen encounter that occurred in the present case and that the majority has described and disapproved so eloquently. Such charades do indeed permit the police to seize individuals, see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16 (1968), at random and require them to convince the officers of their innocence of wrongdoing. They also potentially permit the *180police to sanitize an unlawful, suspicionless “encounter” by construing the subject’s non-cooperation as “suspicious” or “flight” and then claiming “probable cause” to arrest. Cf Melear, 63 Haw. at 494, 630 P.2d at 625; Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 66-67 (1968).
I agree with the majority that such a state of affairs “is anathema to our constitutional freedoms.” According to the United States Supreme Court, the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution may not be offended, see, e.g., Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. at_, 111 S. Ct. at 2384, 2386, but, in my view, article I, section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution certainly is.

 Article I, section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution provides:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches, seizures and invasions of privacy shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized or the communications sought to be intercepted.
(Emphasis added.) The words “invasions of privacy” were added to article I, section 7 by the 1968 Constitutional Convention. State v. Roy, 54 Haw. 513, 518, 510 P.2d 1066, 1069 (1973) (Levinson, J., concurring). The Convention’s Standing Committee Report No. 55 stated: “The proposed amendment is intended to include protection against indiscriminate wire-tapping as well as undue government inquiry into and regulation of those areas of a person’s life which is [sic] defined as necessary to insure ‘man’s individuality and human dignity.’ ” Id. (Emphasis added.)

 In State v. Texeira, 50 Haw. 138, 142 n.2, 433 P.2d 593, 597 n.2 (1967), this court had the courage and foresight to forge the apparently revolutionary notion that “[a]s long as we afford defendants the minimum protection required by federal interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, we are unrestricted in interpreting the constitution of this state to afford greater protection.” We have adhered steadfastly to this principle. See, e.g., State v. Grahovac, 52 Haw. 527, 531, 533, 480 P.2d 148,151-52 (1971); State *178v. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 265-66, 492 P.2d 657, 664 (1971); State v. Kaluna, 55 Haw. 361, 367-69, 372-75, 520 P.2d 51, 57-58, 60-62 (1974); State v. Manzo, 58 Haw. 440, 452, 573 P.2d 945, 953 (1977); State v. Miyasaki, 62 Haw. 269,280-82,614 P.2d 915, 921-23 (1980); Huihui v. Shimoda, 64 Haw. 527, 531, 644 P.2d 968, 971 (1982); State v. Fields, 67 Haw. 268, 282, 686 P.2d 1379, 1390 (1984); State v. Wyatt, 67 Haw. 293, 304 n.9, 687 P.2d 544, 552 n.9 (1984); State v. Tanaka, 67 Haw. 658, 661-62, 701 P.2d 1274, 1276 (1985); State v. Kim, 68 Haw. 286, 289-90, 711 P.2d 1291, 1293-94 (1985); State v. Kam, 69 Haw. 483, 491, 748 P.2d 372, 377 (1988).