State v. Wiley, 12152

• Decision Date: 29 March 1988
• Docket Number: No. 12152,12152
• Citation: 69 Haw. 589,752 P.2d 102
• Parties: STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kerry Lane WILEY, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Page 102

752 P.2d 102

69 Haw. 589

STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kerry Lane WILEY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 12152.

Supreme Court of Hawai'i.

March 29, 1988.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable unless they fall within one of the carefully defined exceptions. However, a recognized exception to this rule arises when the investigating officer has probable cause and exigent circumstances exist, and exigency must be determined on a case by case basis.

2. Although the State is not restricted from adopting reasonable measures to protect its citizenry from air piracy, the interference to which an individual's liberty and privacy are exposed must be limited to the very minimum necessary to accomplish the governmental objective.

3. Although the threatened harm of air piracy justifies limited airport screenings, the reasonableness of such screening is predicated upon the eminent danger of such a threat. Once a potential perpetrator is arrested and the threat of hijacking averted, this public safety purpose is served, and its policy cannot justify any further infringement of an individual's right to be free from unreasonable searches.

4. By submitting his luggage to an airport screening search, Defendant does not irrevocably relinquish his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches that fall outside the limited scope of such a screening.

Alexa D.M. Fujise, Deputy Pros. Atty., Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellant.

Travis J.L. Stephens, Jr. (James D. Comack with him on the brief, of counsel, Comack, Kuchi & Nakamoto), Honolulu, for defendant-appellee.

Before LUM, C.J., and NAKAMURA, PADGETT, HAYASHI and WAKATSUKI, JJ.

LUM, Chief Justice.

This appeal by the State of Hawaii raises the question of whether, in the absence of exigent circumstances, state officers ¹ are required to obtain a warrant before searching a pillow taken from the possession of a defendant who has already been placed under arrest. Finding the warrantless search of the pillow unreasonable, in that the search violates article I, section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution, we answer the question in the affirmative and uphold the order of the circuit court suppressing the contraband retrieved from it.

I.

On November 17, 1986, Defendant Kerry Lane Wiley, arrived at Honolulu International Airport from San Francisco. After collecting his luggage, Defendant attempted to re-enter a secured area to rest. At the security checkpoint, Defendant placed three pieces of luggage on the conveyor belt and informed a guard that he had declaration tags for two handguns which had been registered with Continental Airlines. He was unaware of the fact that such handguns, whether registered or not, were not permitted in the secured area. Another guard then asked Defendant whether he possessed any other weapons or ammunition. Although Defendant was cooperative, he indicated an unwillingness to have his luggage searched, stating "if there is going to be a problem ... I will gladly leave." A third guard began to search for additional weapons based upon the presence of unidentified objects on the security x-ray screen when Honolulu Police Department officers arrived.

Without a warrant, the security guards searched Defendant's belongings, including an ammunition box, and discovered several clear plastic bags filled with marijuana. Defendant was placed under arrest and handcuffed at this time. The circuit court allowed the State to introduce this evidence in its prosecution of Defendant for Promoting a Detrimental Drug in the First Degree in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712-1247(1)(e). However, the court did not allow the introduction of evidence of contraband recovered from other items searched, including newspaper-wrapped packets, a shoe, and a pillow. The court determined that Defendant had a reasonable and legitimate expectation of privacy in each of these items, and therefore, as closed containers, they could not be searched unless justified by some exception to the search warrant requirement.

The State appeals the suppression of the evidence retrieved from only the pillow. At the time the interior of the pillow was searched, Defendant had already been placed under arrest, and his belongings were under the control of law enforcement officers.

II.

The well-established rule in this jurisdiction is that warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable unless they fall within one of the carefully defined exceptions. State v. Jenkins, 62 Haw. 660, 619 P.2d 108 (1980); State v. Kender, 60 Haw. 301, 588 P.2d 447 (1978); State v. Kaluna, 55 Haw. 361, 520 P.2d 51 (1974). A recognized exception to this rule arises when the investigating officer has probable cause and exigent circumstances exist, however, exigency must be determined on a case by case basis. State v. Jenkins, supra; State v. Elliott, 61 Haw. 492, 605 P.2d 930 (1980).

Because Defendant was already under arrest and his belongings safely immobilized under the control of law enforcement officers, the State fails to show that exigent circumstances existed when the pillow was searched. See State v. Rosborough, 62 Haw. 238, 615 P.2d 84, reh'g denied 62 Haw. 689, 615 P.2d 84 (1980). We stated in Rosborough that "when no exigency is shown to support the need for an immediate search, the Warrant Clause places the line at the point where the property to be searched comes under the exclusive dominion of police authority." (...