State v. Estabillio

• Decision Date: 26 October 2009
• Docket Number: No. 28950.,28950.
• Citation: 121 Haw. 261,218 P.3d 749
• Parties: STATE of Hawai`i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jon Curtis ESTABILLIO, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

218 P.3d 749

121 Haw. 261

STATE of Hawai`i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jon Curtis ESTABILLIO, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

No. 28950.

Supreme Court of Hawai`i.

October 26, 2009.

Phyllis J. Hironaka, Deputy Public Defender, for petitioner/defendant-appellant.

Jason M. Skier, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent/plaintiff-appellee.

MOON, C.J., NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, and DUFFY, JJ., and Circuit Judge McKENNA, in place of RECKTENWALD, J., Recused.

Opinion of the Court by MOON, C.J.

On July 31, 2009, this court accepted a timely application for a writ of certiorari, filed by petitioner/defendant-appellant Jon Curtis Estabillio, Jr. on June 23, 2009, requesting that this court review the Intermediate Court of Appeals' (ICA) March 26, 2009 judgment on appeal, entered pursuant to its March 13, 2009 memorandum opinion (mem. op.), 2009 WL 685655. Therein, the ICA affirmed the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit's¹ December 28, 2007 judgment, convicting Estabillio of, and sentencing him for, — pursuant to his conditional guilty plea — attempted promoting a dangerous drug in the first degree, in violation of Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 705-500(1)(b) (1993)² and 712-1242(1)(c) (Supp.2008).³ Oral argument was held on September 17, 2009.

Briefly stated, Estabillio was initially stopped for a traffic offense that eventually led to the discovery of drugs on his person and in his vehicle. Estabillio moved to have, inter alia, the drug evidence suppressed on the grounds that the traffic stop was pretextual and that he was subject to an illegal continued detention, which the circuit court denied. Thereafter, Estabillio entered a conditional guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement with respondent/plaintiff-appellee State of Hawai`i (the prosecution) and appealed. The ICA affirmed, relying on this court's decision in State v. Barros, 98 Hawai`i 337, 48 P.3d 584 (2002) (holding that an officer was not prohibited under the constitution from requesting a warrant check in a traffic stop when the check did not prolong the length of time needed to issue the traffic citation).

On application, Estabillio argues, inter alia, that the evidence recovered should have been suppressed because it was obtained in violation of article I, section 7 of the Hawai`i Constitution. More specifically, Estabillio asks:

Whether the ICA gravely erred, in violation of Estabillio's rights against unreasonable search, seizure and invasions of privacy . . . by affirming the [circuit] court's denial of his motion to suppress, ignoring undisputed evidence that the stop was pretextual, that the traffic violations investigation had ceased, and that no reasonable suspicion existed to investigate Estabillio for drugs.

As discussed more fully infra, we hold that the ICA erred in affirming the circuit court's denial of Estabillio's motion to suppress. Accordingly, we reverse (1) the ICA's March 25, 2009 judgment on appeal and (2) the trial court's (a) December 28, 2007 judgment of conviction and sentence, entered nunc pro tunc to December 14, 2007, and (b) August 31, 2007 denial of Estabillio's motion to suppress.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural and Factual Background

On January 9, 2006, Estabillio was charged — via complaint — with, inter alia: (1) attempted promoting a dangerous drug in the first degree, in violation of HRS §§ 705-500(1)(b) and 712-1242(1)(c). On December 28, 2006, Estabillio filed a motion to suppress all the evidence that served as the basis for, inter alia, the drug offense, arguing that it was unconstitutionally recovered from him based on a warrantless seizure of both his person and his property. The prosecution opposed Estabillio's motion to suppress.

On July 20, and August 31, 2007, a hearing was held on Estabillio's motion. The following witnesses were called by Estabillio to testify regarding the events that occurred on January 5, 2006, which resulted in the recovery of the evidence that Estabillio sought to suppress. The prosecution did not call any witnesses.

1. Officer Robert Pauole

Hawai`i County Police Department (HCPD) officer Robert Pauole (Officer Pauole) — a traffic enforcement officer — testified that, on January 5, 2006 at around 8:00 p.m., he was contacted by HCPD officer Brian Prudencio — an officer with the "vice squad" [hereinafter, Vice-Officer Prudencio] — via cell phone, requesting Officer Pauole's assistance with a traffic stop of Estabillio. Vice-Officer Prudencio provided Officer Pauole with basic information about Estabillio including, "who he was, date of birth, . . . the description of the car[,] and where . . . [his] car would be." More specifically, Officer Pauole testified that Vice-Officer Prudencio informed him that Estabillio was at Puainako Town Center, driving a 1993 green Honda sedan and that the weight tax emblem [hereinafter, registration sticker] for the vehicle was expired. According to Officer Pauole, Vice-Officer Prudencio also informed Officer Pauole that he believed that there were "drugs in the car." Officer Pauole indicated that it was his understanding that he was being asked to stop Estabillio's vehicle to assist Vice-Officer Prudencio in his investigation of Estabillio because vice squad officers did not equip their vehicles with "blue light[s] and siren[s]." Officer Pauole also indicated that it was his understanding that "the plan was for [him] to stop [Estabillio], and then [the vice officers] would appear and conduct their investigation."

Officer Pauole testified that he then located Estabillio exiting the Puainako Town Center, heading southbound in the Puna direction. He pulled in behind Estabillio and observed that the registration sticker on Estabillio's vehicle was current. Officer Pauole radioed dispatch and requested information to verify whether Estabillio's vehicle registration was expired — as Vice-Officer Prudencio had informed him — or if it was, in fact, valid as reflected by the current sticker. Dispatch informed Officer Pauole that Estabillio's vehicle registration was expired.

Officer Pauole testified that he continued to follow Estabillio and stopped behind him at a stop light at the intersection of Kawailani Street and Kilauea. Officer Pauole stated that, as the light turned green, Estabillio accelerated rapidly. Officer Puaole clocked his acceleration and determined that Estabillio "obtained a speed of [fifty] miles an hour" in a posted thirty-five miles per hour speed zone. Officer Pauole indicated that he then radioed central dispatch to notify them that he intended to make a traffic stop on Estabillio's vehicle and initiated the stop with the "use of [his] strobe lights and burst of a siren." Estabillio stopped and pulled into a private driveway. Once Estabillio stopped, Officer Pauole pulled in directly behind Estabillio, blocking him from exiting the driveway, and observed that there was one passenger in Estabillio's vehicle (later identified as Aaron Castro). Officer Pauole testified that, at that point, Estabillio was not free to leave the scene and was being detained for the traffic violation, i.e., speeding.

Upon exiting his vehicle and approaching Estabillio, Officer Pauole informed Estabillio that he had stopped him because of the speeding infraction, as well as the vehicle registration discrepancy. Officer Pauole testified that he asked Estabillio for his "license, registration, [and] insurance," which is standard procedure for a traffic stop, but that Estabillio was only able to provide him with a driver's license. Officer Pauole stated that, while he was still speaking with Estabillio, the vice squad officers arrived at the scene. After obtaining Estabillio's driver's license and information, Officer Pauole indicated that he returned to his vehicle to run a warrant check on Estabillio and determined there were none. He also testified that he did not begin writing the traffic citations because "the vice officers had already arrived on [the] scene." Officer Pauole further testified as follows:

Q. [By Estabillio's counsel] Now, normally[,] once citations like these are issued[,] is the offender allowed to leave the scene, or is he arrested and taken into custody?

. . . .

A. [By Officer Pauole] If I just give citations then they're free to leave after the citation.

Q. Okay. You hand them the ticket and they can leave?

A. Yes.

Q. In this case[,] did you ever issue citations for . . . Estabillio?

A. No.

Q. Now, while you were at the scene[,] did you participate at — in the investigation after leaving . . . Estabillio with the arrival of [Vice-Officer] Prudencio?

A. Uh, once [Vice-Officer] Prudencio arrived on scene I just stood by my car and I waited.

Q. Did — were you, uh, did you observe what was going on in the — in the, uh, encounter between [Vice-Officer] Prudencio, the other officers, and . . . Estabillio?

A. Yes, I was watching what they were doing.

Q. Now, did [Vice-]Officer Prudencio ask you to conduct any further investigation in this case?

A. No.

Q. Now, if it was your, uh, responsibility or assignment that day to conduct the traffic stop, why were you not actively participating in the investigation of . . . Estabillio's traffic tickets?

A. It was my assumption that he was gonna be arrested, um, and normally when they are arrested for other things they add on the, uh, infractions to the arrest.

Q. Is it your understanding that after your stop of the car you — well, let me withdraw that. You indicated that your understanding was that he was going to be arrested and, therefore, these traffic tickets would be added on?

A. Yes. They would be part of the arrest.

Q. You yourself did not issue or effect any arrest —

A. No.

When asked about how long it would have taken him to issue the traffic citations, Officer Pauole indicated that it would depend on whether they were using the "old citations or new citations." According to Officer Pauole, the "old" citations would have taken "maybe twenty minutes"; the "new" citations ...