Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

---o0o---

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner vs. NATHAN AH LOO, Defendant-Appellee-Respondent

NO. 22467

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CASE NO. LC98-103)

SEPTEMBER 27, 2000

MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, RAMIL, AND ACOBA, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY LEVINSON, J. The plaintiff-appellant-petitioner State of Hawai#i ("the prosecution") has applied for a writ of certiorari to review the published opinion of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) in State v. Ah Loo, No. 22467 (Haw. Ct. App. July 5, 2000) [hereinafter, "the ICA's opinion"]. The ICA's opinion affirmed

the order of the district court of the fifth circuit, filed on April 14, 1999, which granted the defendant-appellee-respondent Nathan Ah Loo's motion to suppress a statement that he made to a police officer regarding his age. We granted certiorari in order to make it clear that, although a person may be "seized" within the meaning of article

I, section 7 of the Hawai#i Constitution,1 the seizure does not, as a per se matter, render the person "in custody" for purposes of applying article I, section 10 of the Hawai#i Constitution.2 Rather, a "seized" person is not "in custody," such that police "interrogation" may not permissibly be conducted in the absence of the warnings mandated by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), see supra note 2, "until such time as the point of arrest or accusation has been reached or the questioning has ceased to be brief and casual and become sustained and coercive." State v.

Hoffman, 73 Haw. 41, 54, 828 P.2d 805, 813 (1992) (quoting State v. Melemai, 64 Haw. 479, 482, 643 P.2d 541, 544 (1982)); State v. Patterson, 59 Haw. 357, 363, 581 P.2d 752, 756 (1978). the totality of the circumstances surrounding Ah Loo's "interrogation" in this case establish that, although lawfully "seized" within the meaning of article I, section 7, Ah Loo was not "in custody" at the time he responded to a police officer's inquiry regarding his age, we hold that the officer was not required to "Mirandize" Ah Loo before asking him the question. Accordingly, we reverse the ICA's opinion, vacate the district court's order, and remand the matter to the district court for Because

Article I, section 7 of the Hawai #i Constitution (1978) provides in relevant part that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable . . . seizures . . . shall not be violated[.]" Article I, section 10 of the Hawai #i Constitution (1982) provides in relevant part that "[n]o person shall . . . be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against oneself." We have held that this section -- akin to its federal counterpart, the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution -- forecloses the prosecution from introducing a defendant's statements into evidence that were obtained through "custodial interrogation," unless, prior to making the statement, the defendant was warned that he or she had a right to remain silent, that anything said could be used against him or her, that he or she had a right to the presence of an attorney, and that an attorney would be appointed for him or her if he or she could not afford one. See State v. Kane, 87 Hawai #i 71, 78, 951 P.2d 934, 941 (1998); State v. Hoey, 77 Hawai #i 17, 32-33, 881 P.2d 504, 519-20 (1994); State v. Nelson, 69 Haw. 461, 467, 748 P.2d 365, 369 (1987); State v. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 262-67, 492 P.2d 657, 662-65 (1971); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45 (1996).
2

1

2

further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. BACKGROUND

On February 6, 1998, at approximately 11:50 p.m., Kaua#i Police Department (KPD) Officer Sherwin Perez observed Ah Loo, along with six or seven other people, congregated around the bed of a pickup truck that was parked adjacent to a golf course. Transcript of Proceeding 2/26/99 (Tr.) at 4-6. Ah Loo appeared Id. at 5, 9. Id. at

to Officer Perez to be under the age of twenty-one.

Officer Perez observed Ah Loo holding an open beer can. 6.

Two other KPD officers accompanied Officer Perez; all three were patrolling the area in an unmarked police vehicle. Id. at 9. The officers detained the group for the purpose of Id. at 10. Officer Perez,

ascertaining each person's age.

without first advising Ah Loo of his Miranda rights, see supra note 2, asked Ah Loo for identification; when he refused to produce any, Officer Perez asked Ah Loo his name, age, and place of residence. Id. at 6-7, 11. Id. at 7. Ah Loo responded, inter alia, Consequently, Officer Perez

that he was eighteen.

issued Ah Loo a citation for violating Hawai#i Revised Statutes (HRS)

Download 22467.pdf

Hawaii Law