State v. Safadago
| Decision Date | 23 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | CAAP-20-0000094 |
| Parties | STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CODY SAFADAGO, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT (CR. NO 5CPC-17-172)
On the briefs:
Rosa Flores
(Law Office of Rosa Flores)
for Defendant-Appellant
Tracy Murakami
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
County of Kaua'i
for Plaintiff-Appellee
Defendant-Appellant Cody Safadago (Safadago) appeals from the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence; Notice of Entry, filed on January 27, 2020 by the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit (Circuit Court)[1] The indictment charged Safadago with a number of offenses stemming from a fatal traffic collision involving a white Mazda sedan driven by decedent Kayla Huddy-Lemn (Decedent), and a white Nissan truck, allegedly operated by Safadago, near the intersection of Kapa'a Bypass Road on Kuhio Highway, that occurred at around 10:00 p.m. on April 27, 2017.
Following a jury trial, Safadago was convicted of Manslaughter Accidents Involving Death or Serious Bodily Injury (Leaving Scene of Accident), Unauthorized Control of a Propelled Vehicle (UCPV), Resisting Arrest, Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant, other driving-related offenses, and driving without a valid license. The jury found Safadago eligible for extended term sentencing. Safadago was sentenced to an extended life term of imprisonment with the possibility of parole for Manslaughter, an extended concurrent 20-year term of imprisonment for Leaving Scene of Accident, and concurrent terms of imprisonment and jail for all other counts except for UCPV, for which the ten-year extended term of imprisonment was to run consecutively. Safadago timely appealed.[2]
On appeal, Safadago contends that the Circuit Court erred in denying (1) his Motion to Suppress All Evidence and Statements Based Upon Lack of Probable Cause to Arrest Defendant, filed on October 23, 2017 (First Motion to Suppress); (2) his Motion to Suppress Evidence Seized Pursuant to Search Warrants, Based Upon a Lack of Probable Cause, filed on October 23, 2017 (Second Motion to Suppress); (3) his two motions to dismiss the indictment: the August 4, 2017 Motion to Dismiss Grand Jury Indictment (First Motion to Dismiss Indictment), and the October 23, 2017 Motion to Dismiss Grand Jury Indictment Due to Misleading Testimony, and/or Failure to Present Clearly Exculpatory Evidence (Second Motion to Dismiss Indictment).[3]
Upon review of the record on appeal and relevant legal authorities, giving due consideration to the issues raised and arguments advanced by the parties, we resolve Safadago's contentions as follows, and affirm.
The First Motion to Suppress was properly denied.
Safadago contends that the Circuit Court erred in denying Safadago's First Motion to Suppress. He argues that Kaua'i Police Department (KPD) Officer Michael Buratti's (Officer Buratti) seizure of Safadago was unconstitutional because Officer Buratti did not have a reasonable suspicion to detain Safadago pursuant to State v. Tominiko, 126 Hawai'i 68, 77, 266 P.3d 1122, 1131 (2011).[4] Safadago argues that Tominiko is identical to Safadago's case in that: Safadago was already walking away when Officer Buratti called out to him, Safadago began running, Officer Buratti gave chase, and Safadago slowed to walk as Officer Buratti asked Safadago if it was his truck. This contention lacks merit.
The following record pertinent to both the First and Second Motions to Suppress is from the hearing on the motions held on December 12, 2017 and January 19, 2018, and the Circuit Court's identical, unchallenged findings of fact in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (FOFs/COLs) in the order denying the First Motion to Suppress and the order denying the Second Motion to Suppress. See State v. Rodrigues, 145 Hawai'i 487, 497, 454 P.3d 428, 438 (2019) (citation omitted) ("It is well-established that . . . unchallenged findings of fact are binding on appellate courts.").
On April 27, 2017, at approximately 10:45 p.m., a traffic collision occurred between a stolen Nissan truck and a Mazda four door car. FOF 1. The collision happened just North of Kintaro's in Kapa'a, Hawai'i. FOF 2. The driver of the Mazda, Kayla Huddy-Lemn, died shortly after the collision but before being extricated from the vehicle. FOF 3. When Officer Buratti arrived on scene he went to the location of the Nissan truck. FOF 4. Officer Buratti heard a loud verbal argument in the parking lot area of JC's Flower, a retail establishment adjacent to Street Burger. FOF 5. Officer Buratti testified that as he exited his vehicle, he heard "at least one and possibly two voices yelling that this guy came from that truck."
As Officer Buratti approached the group of four individuals, a man, later identified as Safadago, turned around, looked at Officer Buratti, and started to run, barefoot, on the sidewalk fronting Street Burger. Officer Buratti asked one of the men in the group, later identified as Aaron Leikam (Leikam), the owner of Street Burger, if Safadago was "the guy from [the] truck," to which Leikam responded, "Yeah, I think so." As Safadago ran away, Officer Buratti yelled for Safadago to stop, but Safadago did not comply. FOFs 8, 9. Based on the information from Leikam, Officer Buratti pursued Safadago, chasing him to a pump station at the intersection of Haleilio Road and Kuhio Highway, and stopping when Safadago ran up against a fence. Officer Buratti repeatedly ordered Safadago to get down on the ground. Officer Buratti asked Safadago, "Is that your white truck?" Safadago denied owning the truck. When Officer Buratti repeated his order for Safadago to get on the ground, Safadago said, "Fuck you," and took a belligerent stance. Officer Buratti again ordered Safadago to get on the ground. When Safadago did not comply, Officer Buratti told Safadago that he was under arrest, and tackled Safadago to the ground. When Officer Shawn Hanna (Officer Hanna) arrived, he handcuffed Safadago, who was then placed in the back of a squad car while the officers continued their investigation.
In its Order Denying the First Motion to Suppress filed February 4, 2019, the Circuit Court concluded that pursuant to HRS § 803-4, [5] "Officer Buratti had a reasonable suspicion to believe that the Defendant was the offender because the Defendant was in the area where the crime was committed and was endeavoring to escape."
"An appellate court reviews a ruling on a motion to suppress de novo to determine whether the ruling was 'right' or 'wrong.'" State v. Weldon, 144 Hawai'i 522, 530, 445 P.3d 103, 111 (2019) (quoting Tominiko, 126 Hawai'i at 75, 266 P.3d at 1129). Conclusions of law are freely reviewable on appeal, under the right/wrong standard. Birano v. State, 143 Hawai'i 163, 181, 426 P.3d 387, 405 (2018) (citations omitted). In reviewing whether a seizure was unconstitutional, an appellate court must determine "1) whether the person was seized; and 2) whether the seizure was justified." Tominiko, 126 Hawai'i at 77, 266 P.3d at 1131 (citing State v. Dawson, 120 Hawai'i 363, 369, 205 P.3d 628, 634 (App. 2009)). "'[T]he police may temporarily detain an individual if they have a reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts that criminal activity is afoot.'" Id. (quoting State v. Kearns, 75 Haw. 558, 569, 867 P.2d 903, 908 (1994)). "The ultimate test in these situations must be whether from these facts, measured by an objective standard, a [person] of reasonable caution would be warranted in believing that criminal activity was afoot and that the action taken was appropriate." Id. at 78, 266 P.3d at 1132 (emphasis and citations omitted). Based on the totality of circumstances, the detaining officers "must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.'" Id. (emphasis omitted) (quoting State v. Koanui, 3 Haw.App. 255, 258, 649 P.2d 385, 387 (1982)).
Here, the record reflects that Officer Buratti had a reasonable suspicion to detain Safadago based on specific and articulable facts that Safadago came from a truck involved in a fatal traffic collision and that he had left the scene. See Tominiko, 126 Hawai'i at 77-78, 266 P.3d at 1131-32. These specific facts included: the traffic collision, another vehicle reportedly involved but no longer at the scene of the collision, the discovery of the truck, the argument at the truck with yelling that a male had come from the truck, Safadago then fleeing from Officer Buratti, Leikam's response that he thought Safadago came from the truck. Viewed in totality, these facts constituted reasonable suspicion to justify Officer Buratti's seizure of Safadago. See id.
"[F]light from the police is a factor which may support a finding of probable cause." State v. Melear, 63 Haw. 488 494, 630 P.2d 619, 625 (1981). HRS § 803-4, which the Circuit Court applied, also provides for the warrantless arrest of a person "found near the place where the crime was committed" who is "endeavoring to escape," in situations where the "offenders are unknown." See Keawe, 107 Hawai'i at 5-7, 108 P.3d at 308-10. Here, the officer had information that Safadago was associated with a vehicle that had left the scene of a collision, Safadago ran from the officer, and also failed to stop despite multiple instructions to do so. Safadago also resisted Officer Buratti's repeated orders to get on the ground and took a belligerent physical stance. Safadago's flight from Officer Buratti, in addition to the other circumstances discussed supra, which justified the...
To continue reading
Request your trial