Court Opinion

ID: 9549782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:24:39.586024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:54.428173
License: Public Domain

RAMIL, Justice,
concurring and dissenting with whom NAKAYAMA, Justice, joins.
I concur with the majority’s decision to reverse, but solely on the basis that forced entry by the police only two seconds after announcing their presence was a violation of the defendants’ constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. I respectfully dissent, however, with the analysis regarding the “demand entrance” portion of HRS § 803-37.
Relying on the ICA’s decision in State v. Garcia, 77 Hawai'i 461, 887 P.2d 671 (App.1995.), the majority concludes that “the plain and unambiguous language of HRS § 803-37 requires police to expressly demand entrance” in order to assure the constitutionality of a subsequent entry. In my view, this reading of the statute is unnecessarily rigid, inasmuch as the police in the instant ease effectuated the intent behind HRS § 803-37.
In State v. Dixon, 83 Hawai'i 13, 924 P.2d 181 (1996), we cited with favor the ease of State v. Myers, 102 Wash.2d 548, 689 P.2d 38, 42 (1984), which stated that the purposes of the “knock and announce” rule were threefold: “(1) reduction of potential violence to both occupants and police resulting from an unannounced entry, (2) prevention of unnecessary property damage, and (3) protection of an occupant’s right to privacy.” In Dixon, we held that the use of a ruse to gain entry is not constitutionally unsound if “the purposes of the knock and announce rule are not frus-tratedf.]” Id. at 23, 924 P.2d at 191.
Additionally, HRS § 803-37 authorizes officers to gain entry by force if “the doors, gates or other bars to the entrance are not immediately opened.” (Emphasis added.) In Garcia, however, the ICA refused to interpret this portion of the statute literally. Citing Garcia, the majority agrees and states that “[t]he standards by which any governmental search is to be judged is always its reasonableness[.]” Garcia, 77 Hawai'i at 467, 887 P.2d at 677 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).
Thus, the validity of an entry to execute a search warrant hinges, in part, on two key factors: (1) the reasonableness of police behavior under the circumstances and (2) whether the purposes behind the knock and announce rule are furthered. Both requirements would have been fulfilled in this case, had the officers not forced their way into the dwelling after only two seconds. Nevertheless, their behavior, taken as a whole, did translate into a demand for entry. The officers (1) knocked, (2) declared their office, and (3) announced their business—that they had a search warrant. These actions were reasonable and realized the intent behind HRS § 803-37. Accordingly, I would reverse on the basis that the forced entry was unreasonable after a short lapse of time, and not because the officers failed to orally demand entry.