State v. Skapinok
| Decision Date | 03 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | SCWC-19-0000476 |
| Citation | 151 Hawai‘i 170,510 P.3d 599 |
| Parties | STATE of Hawai‘i, Petitioner and Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leah SKAPINOK, Respondent and Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Brian R. Vincent, for Petitioner and Respondent State of Hawai‘i
Alen M. Kaneshiro,for Respondent and Petitioner Leah Skapinok
This case requires us to examine the practice of asking so-called medical rule-out questions in the course of an Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OVUII) investigation. An officer administering a standardized field sobriety test (SFST) to an OVUII suspect asks the medical rule-out questions, which "rule out" other reasons, besides intoxication, for poor performance on the SFST. Leah Skapinok was asked seven medical rule-out questions while in police custody, before she was advised of her Miranda 1 rights. If the questions were interrogation, article I, section 10 of the Hawai‘i Constitution requires that her answers to them be suppressed.
We hold that these questions are interrogation under the Hawai‘i Constitution.
There is no per se exception under the Hawai‘i Constitution for questions "necessarily ‘attendant to’ [a] legitimate police procedure." Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 605, 110 S.Ct. 2638, 110 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990) (citation omitted). To avoid suppression for want of Miranda warnings, such questions must pass muster under our well-established interrogation test: "whether the officer should have known that his words and actions were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the defendant." State v. Paahana, 66 Haw. 499, 503, 666 P.2d 592, 595–96 (1983) (citing Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980) ). The medical rule-out questions asked to Skapinok in this case were "reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response" because her answers to them aided in interpreting the SFSTs’ results – that is, her answers supported the inference that she was intoxicated because no medical cause could explain any aberrations in her test performance. Skapinok's answers to the medical rule-out questions must be suppressed.
But we cannot say the same for any of the other challenged evidence. Neither asking whether Skapinok would participate in the SFST nor asking whether she understood the instructions to the test would be reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. And the evidence gathered thereafter, including her performance on the SFST, was not an exploitation of, or benefit derived from, the medical rule-out questions; accordingly, subsequent evidence was not the fruit of the poisonous tree.
On August 18, 2019, around 11:00 p.m., Honolulu Police Department (HPD) Officer William Meredith observed a white Toyota Tacoma speeding down King Street in Honolulu.2 He followed the vehicle onto Ward Avenue, where he observed it "weaving through traffic"; the truck then turned right onto the H-1 freeway onramp, merged onto the freeway, "cross[ed] over a solid white line," and "crossed three lanes of the freeway to the left without a turn signal." After following the truck on the freeway, which appeared to be speeding, Officer Meredith pulled the vehicle over. "Based on his observations, Officer Meredith characterized Defendant's driving as Reckless Driving," which is a petty misdemeanor under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291-2 (2007).3
When Officer Meredith approached the driver's side and spoke with Skapinok, he "noticed a strong odor of alcohol coming from Defendant and observed Defendant's eyes to be red, glassy and bloodshot." Officer Meredith asked if she would participate in an SFST; she "became argumentative" at first, but ultimately consented after Officer Meredith informed her that "if she did not participate in an SFST, that he would arrest her."
Officer Meredith waited for another officer, Corporal Ernest Chang, to arrive;4 when Corporal Chang was informed by Officer Meredith, outside of Skapinok's presence, of the reason for the traffic stop, he agreed that Skapinok could be arrested for reckless driving. Corporal Chang then Skapinok asked whether she would be arrested if she did not participate, and "Corporal Chang told Defendant that she could already be arrested for reckless driving." Skapinok again consented to the SFST.
Corporal Chang asked a series of questions known as the medical rule-out questions prior to administering the SFST:
According to Corporal Chang's testimony, the medical rule-out questions "must be asked to administer the SFST safely" and when answered in the negative, it "tells the officer that the results he sees on the SFST are likely caused by an intoxicant." Corporal Chang "never administers an SFST without first asking the [medical rule-out] questions."
Skapinok responded "no" to all questions except that she told Corporal Chang that she was taking the medication Wellbutrin
and that she was seeing a doctor for depression. Corporal Chang knew "that ingesting Wellbutrin in conjunction with alcohol can cause side effects that are similar to that of intoxication."
After performing the SFST, Skapinok was arrested for OVUII and reckless driving. Neither Corporal Chang nor Officer Meredith administered Miranda warnings prior to her arrest.
Skapinok was charged in the District Court of the First Circuit (district court)5 with OVUII in violation of HRS §§ 291E-61(a)(1) and/or (a)(3) (2018).6
Skapinok moved to suppress "[a]ny statements made by Defendant to [HPD] Officers or other governmental personnel" and "[a]ny and all evidence seized or information gained by the [HPD] after Defendant was placed under arrest, [and] was not read [their] Miranda rights." The motion argued that Skapinok was both in custody and subjected to interrogation during the traffic stop. Skapinok contended she was subjected to interrogation when the officer asked if she would like to participate in the SFST; during the communications that occurred during the test itself (e.g., counting aloud during one component of the SFST); when she was asked the medical rule-out questions; and when asked if she understood the field sobriety test instructions or had any questions about them.
Officer Meredith and Corporal Chang testified at the hearing on the Motion to Suppress. Officer Meredith first testified that after pulling Skapinok over, he "observed that the defendant had red, glassy, bloodshot eyes and a strong odor of alcoholic beverage as [he] was talking to her." Skapinok stipulated to the admission of edited body-camera footage. In the footage, Officer Meredith explained to Skapinok why she was pulled over – for speeding and swerving – and informed her that he could "smell a lot of alcohol coming from [her]." Officer Meredith asked Skapinok if she would like to do a field sobriety test, to which she responded, and added, "I swear I haven't been drinking."
Officer Meredith then told Skapinok that participating in the test was voluntary, but that if she did not, she would be arrested under suspicion of driving under the influence. A lengthy exchange followed in which Skapinok repeated several times that she had not had any alcohol. In its findings of fact, the district court characterized Skapinok as "argumentative with Officer Meredith" during this exchange. Officer Meredith replied that he was not asking her if she was drinking, he was only conveying his observations and asking if she would participate in the test.
On cross-examination, Officer Meredith testified that he would characterize Skapinok's driving as reckless and that he had probable cause to arrest her for either OVUII or reckless driving even without the SFST. Additionally, he testified that "very early on in [the] conversation she was not free to leave the scene" and that he told Skapinok three times that if she declined to do the SFST, she would be arrested. Thirty minutes passed from the time that he stopped the vehicle to her arrest.
Corporal Chang testified thereafter.7 Skapinok stipulated to the admission of Corporal Chang's body-camera footage, which showed, as relevant here, the following interaction:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial