Court Opinion

ID: 9605543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:38:37.918479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:47.500616
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION OF
RICHARDSON, C.J.
I dissent.
I would reverse the trial court’s granting of the motion to suppress evidence seized from defendant-appellee Walter Joao, because I believe that the search and subsequent seizure were reasonable under the circumstances in this case.
The majority recognizes the principle that a police officer may, in an appropriate manner, stop a person for investigation of possible criminal behavior on the basis of information not sufficient to constitute probable cause to make an arrest. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22 (1968). The majority correctly states that the issue in this case is whether the unidentified informant’s tip was sufficiently reliable to justify Officer Wong’s stopping the defendant. Because the stopping was a seizure of the defendant’s person, if this initial intrusion was unreasonable, the subsequent frisk was also unreasonable.
However, I dissent from the majority opinion for the same reason that I dissented from the opinion of this court in State v. Onishi, 53 Haw. 593, 499 P.2d 657 (1972), my belief that the majority has misconstrued the intent of Justice Rehnquist in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 145-146 (1972):
The Fourth Amendment does not require a policeman who lacks the precise level of information necessary for probable cause to arrest to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape. On the contrary, Terry [supra] recognizes that it may be the essence of good police work to adopt an intermediate response. A brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time. (Citations omitted.)
The Court stated that although the informant’s unverified tip in Adams v. Williams, supra, may have been insufficient for a search warrant, it carried sufficient indicia of reliability to *607justify a forcible stop of the defendant.
In so holding, the Court implicitly rejected as inappropriate for street encounters the test it had propounded in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964), to determine whether an informant’s tip was sufficiently reliable to support probable cause for arrest or issuance of a search warrant. Instead, the Court would permit a reduced standard of reliability for street encounters, and would test it on a case-by-case basis:
One simple rule will not cover every situation. Some tips, completely lacking in indicia of reliability, would either warrant no police response or require further investigation before a forcible stop of a suspect would be authorized. But in some situations . . . the subtleties of the hearsay rule should not thwart an appropriate police response. Adams v. Williams, supra, 407 U.S. at 147.
In Adams v. Williams, supra at 146, 147, the Court identified three indicia of reliability which were sufficient to justify a forcible stop of the defendant: First, the informant was “known . . . personally” to the officer and had “provided him with information in the past”; second, the informant came forward with “information that was immediately verifiable at the scene;” and finally, that the informant would have been criminally liable for giving a false tip.
In the instant case, the informant was known to Officer Wong personally and had provided him with information in the past. Under HRS § 710-1015,1 a similar statute to that involved in Adams v. Williams, supra, the informant would have been subject to false arrest for making a false report to Officer Wong. Although the information was not immediately verifiable at the scene at the time it was given to Officer Wong, from his personal knowledge and from intelligence type information from other police officers and their informants, he was able to recognize the defendant and was aware that the defendant had a reputation for carrying a gun. In *608United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 583 (1971), the Supreme Court held that a policeman may properly rely on his knowledge of a suspect’s reputation in assessing the reliability of an informant’s tip.
The majority would not rely on Officer Wong’s conclusory assertion in this case that the informant was very reliable. Nevertheless, the Fourth and Tenth Circuits have recently accepted an officer’s assertion of previous reliability as sufficient under Adams v. Williams, supra, to justify an investigatory stop. United States v. Jefferson, 480 F.2d 1004, 1006 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1001 (1973);Stone v. Patterson, 468 F.2d 558, 560 (10th Cir. 1972).
As to the quantum of information possessed by Officer Wong, he was told that the defendant carried a .22 caliber automatic pistol fitted for a silencer whenever “he’s in Waikiki or traveling around the town area.” Although the informer had actually seen the gun, he was unwilling to state when or under what circumstances he had observed the gun. Officer Wong properly recognized that this amount of information was insufficient to obtain a search warrant. Nevertheless he properly believed he had reasonable cause to justify a stop of the defendant to further investigate, should he encounter the defendant during his routine patrol of Waikiki.
Interpreting the above circumstances in the light of Adams v. Williams, supra, I believe the information was sufficient and carried enough indicia of reliability to justify Officer Wong’s stop of the defendant. Having concluded that the stop in this case was reasonable, I turn to a discussion of the reasonableness of the search.
In Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. at 24, 30, the Court recognized that a policeman making a reasonable investigatory stop of an individual who he believes to be armed and dangerous should be permitted to conduct a limited protective search for concealed weapons. In the instant case, Officer Wong had reasonable cause to suspect that the defendant was armed and dangerous. At the hearing on the motion to suppress he described his protective search of the defendant:
I identified myself as a police officer and started to frisk *609him. As I started to go towards his — to start the frisk, towards his shoulder area, he sort of stepped back. He put his hands up in the air and stated words, “I get one, I get one. ” Then I started my frisk; and in the area of his right waistband, I felt an object which felt like a pistol which was tucked inside the waistband of his trousers. When the defendant stated “I get one, I get one, ’ ’ Officer
Wong’s action in continuing his search to insure his safety was reasonable. Once Officer Wong found the gun that the informant had described, probable cause existed to arrest the defendant for unlawful possession of the weapon.
I believe that the search in the instant case was reasonable and therefore that the circuit court erred in suppressing the fruits of the search.

 HRS § 710-1015 False Reporting to Laiv-Enforcement Authorities.
(1) A person commits the offense of false reporting to law-enforcement authorities if he intentionally makes a report or causes the transmission of a report to law-enforcement authorities relating to a crime or other incident within their concern when he knows that the information contained in the report is false.
(2) False reporting to law-enforcement authorities is a misdemeanor.