State v. Hanson, 22847.
Court | Supreme Court of Hawai'i |
Citation | 97 Haw. 71,34 P.3d 1 |
Docket Number | No. 22847.,22847. |
Parties | STATE of Hawai`i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William HANSON, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee. |
Decision Date | 02 November 2001 |
Caroline M. Mee, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellant, on the briefs.
Hayden Aluli, for defendant-appellee, on the briefs.
We hold that when an airline passenger consents to a search of his or her effects at an airport security checkpoint, the scope of the search reasonably extends to those receptacles, the contents of which cannot be identified, contained in luggage. We thus affirm the May 14, 2001 decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA)1 reversing the August 26, 1999 order of the district court of the first circuit (the court) suppressing, as evidence, a gun contained in a bag found in the luggage of Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee William Hanson (Petitioner). See State v. Hanson, 97 Hawai`i 77, 34 P.3d 7 (App.2000)
.
The court's findings reflect that on June 11, 1999, Petitioner was scheduled to fly from Honolulu, O`ahu to Kailua-Kona, Hawai`i on Hawaiian Airlines. Petitioner arrived at the Hawaiian Airlines ticket counter with a large amount of luggage including a wooden toolbox. Frederick Garringer, a Honolulu Airport security officer,2 examined Petitioner's toolbox on an "x-ray" machine but was unable to identify everything within the toolbox. Petitioner allowed Garringer to search his toolbox and in fact opened the combination lock on the box. In the box was a tan plastic bag wrapped in duct tape but the bag's contents could not be identified. Garringer testified that he sought Petitioner's permission to search the bag; Petitioner claimed otherwise. As to this matter, the court found Petitioner's testimony more credible. Garringer opened the plastic bag and discovered a second plastic bag containing a white cardboard box. From the box, Garringer recovered a black handgun.
On June 11, 1999, Petitioner was charged with failing to register a firearm, Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 134-3(a) (1993) and -17(b) (Supp.2000).3 On July 9, 1999, Petitioner moved to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the search. At a hearing held on August 23, 1999, the motion was orally granted. In its oral decision, the court referred to State v. Wiley, 69 Haw. 589, 752 P.2d 102 (1988), which it believed applied to the instant case. On August 26, 1999, the court filed its written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order granting Petitioner's motion.
(Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.)
The ICA vacated the court's August 26, 1999 findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order, and remanded the case for further proceedings. See 97 Hawai`i at 78, 34 P.3d at 8. It did not evaluate any of the court's findings of fact. However, the ICA did say, with respect to the court's conclusions of law, that "no authority in the oral or written conclusions of the district court . . . supports its order[.]" Op. at 86, 34 P.3d at 16. It determined that Petitioner "consented to the x-ray screening and manual search of his toolbox" and "[b]y consenting to this process, [Petitioner] implicitly consented to a hand search of an item in a tan plastic bag where the x-ray scan was inconclusive[.]" Op. at 83, 34 P.3d at 13. In distinguishing Wiley, the ICA said the search there was unreasonable because at the time it took place "efendant was already under arrest and his belongings safely immobilized under the control of law enforcement officers." Op. at 86, 34 P.3d at 16 (quoting Wiley, 69 Haw. at 591, 752 P.2d at 103).
In arriving at its holding, the ICA: (1) believed that the search did not violate Petitioner's "reasonable expectation of privacy under the fourth amendment" to the United States Constitution,4 op. at 82, 34 P.3d at 12 ( ); and (2) apparently concluded that the search would not contravene article I, section 7 of the Hawai`i Constitution.5 See op. at 85, 34 P.3d at 15.
On June 13, 2001, Petitioner filed his application for certiorari. In it, Petitioner contends the ICA: (1) wrongly "overruled" Wiley;6 (2) violated the rule that "a warrantless search of items, such as a closed, opaque package in which a defendant has a legitimate expectation of privacy, is presumptively unreasonable"; (3) "adopted the rationale that an airline traveler implicitly consents to a `limited hand search of luggage' without any facts in the record ... about prior notice to Hawaii travelers"; (4) cited federal and state regulations and state statutes that were not relied upon by the parties below in establishing that "[t]he search of [Petitioner]'s toolbox by Garringer appears to have been pursuant to a screening system adopted by Hawaiian Airlines as mandated by FAA regulation. . . ."; (5) ignored "[t]he court['s finding]. . . that [Petitioner] did not freely and voluntarily consent to the search of the plastic bag found within his toolbox"; and (6) overlooked "[t]he Hawai`i Supreme Court['s]... willingness to afford greater protection of individual rights than is provided on the federal level." In light of Defendant's objections, we granted certiorari to clarify the basis for upholding airport security searches.
As to Petitioner's citation to Wiley, we believe that case to be inapposite. Petitioner apparently relies on the statement in Wiley that this court "do[es] not believe that by submitting luggage to an airport screening search, [a defendant] irrevocably relinquishe[s] his [or her] constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches that fall outside the limited scope of such a screening." 69 Haw. at 592-93,752 P.2d at 104. The basis for affirming suppression of the contraband in Wiley, however, rested not on any airport security measures taken, but on the unreasonableness of the warrantless search that followed after the defendant had been arrested and his belongings subjected to the control of the police:
Id. Contrastingly, Petitioner was not under arrest at the time of the search and had consented to the search. See discussion in section V, infra.
910 P.2d at 705-06 (quoting State v. Bonnell, 75 Haw. 124, 139, 856 P.2d 1265, 1273-74 (1993)). It is widely held that persons boarding aircraft have a decreased objective expectation of privacy in their belongings.7
See Florida v. Rodriguez, 469 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 308, 83 L.Ed.2d 165 (1984) (per curiam); People v. Rincon, 177 A.D.2d 125, 581 N.Y.S.2d 293, 295 (1992) (); People v. De Strulle, 28 Cal.App.3d 477, 104 Cal. Rptr. 639, 641 (1972) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Phillips
..."the absence of an express indication," consent may be implied from an individual's words, gestures, or conduct. SeeState v. Hanson, 97 Hawai'i 71, 75, 34 P.3d 1, 5 (2001).Phillips expressly consented to the initial police intrusion into his home and its curtilage. He called 911 and stated:......
-
State v. Harada
......Kaluna, 55 Haw. 361, 369-70 n. 6, 520 P.2d 51, 58-59 n. 6 41 P.3d 208 (1974); State v. Hanson, 97 Hawai`i 77, 82, 34 P.3d 7, 12 (App.2001), affirmed by, 97 Hawai`i 71, 34 P.3d 1 (2001) ("The Hawai`i Supreme Court has concluded that a person's expectation of privacy under article 1, § 7 of the Hawai`i Constitution is greater than that under the fourth amendment to the United States ......
-
State v. Won
...state's highways, drivers voluntarily bring themselves under the regulation of the implied consent laws. See 361 P.3d 1223 State v. Hanson, 97 Haw. 71, 75, 34 P.3d 1, 5 (2001) (stating that consent may be implied from an individual's conduct); see also Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A......
-
State v. Carter
...who have notice of the possibility of a bag search at an airport are deemed impliedly to consent to such a search, see State v. Hanson , 97 Hawai'i 71, 34 P.3d 1, 5 (2001), a Light Rail passenger without notice of a fare sweep impliedly consents to that comparatively less intrusive police a......