State v. Naeole

470 P.3d 1120

STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Dawn NAEOLE, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee.

SCWC-18-0000381

Supreme Court of Hawai‘i.

June 22, 2020

Phyllis J. Hironaka for Petitioner

Brian R. Vincent for Respondent

RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, McKENNA, POLLACK, AND WILSON, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY WILSON, J.

Among the rights guaranteed by the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Hawai‘i is the fundamental right of the people to be secure in their homes from unreasonable searches, seizures, and invasions of privacy. See U.S. Const. amend. IV ; Haw. Const. art. I, § 7. "Both the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Hawai‘i Constitution ensure that an individual's legitimate expectations of privacy will not be subjected to unreasonable governmental intrusions." State v. Meyer, 78 Hawai‘i 308, 311-12, 893 P.2d 159, 162-63 (1995). "Every householder, the good and the bad, the guilty and the innocent, is entitled to the protection designed to secure the common interest against unlawful invasion of the house." Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 313, 78 S.Ct. 1190, 2 L.Ed.2d 1332 (1958). To safeguard this constitutional guarantee, "[t]he standards by which any governmental search is to be judged is always its reasonableness[.]" State v. Garcia, 77 Hawai‘i 461, 467, 887 P.2d 671, 677 (App. 1995) (quoting State v. Martinez, 59 Haw. 366, 368, 580 P.2d 1282, 1284 (1978) ). More specifically, when the police demand entrance to a person's home pursuant to a search warrant, they are constitutionally required to afford the occupants of the home a "reasonable time" to respond before forcing entry. State v. Monay, 85 Hawai‘i 282, 284, 943 P.2d 908, 910 (1997) (quoting Garcia, 77 Hawai‘i at 468, 887 P.2d at 678 ).

In this case, we consider whether the Honolulu Police Department ("HPD") gave Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee Dawn Naeole ("Naeole") a reasonable amount of time to respond to their demand for entry when they executed a search warrant at her home in the early morning of September 4, 2015. Naeole, who was suspected of illegal drug activity, had the front door of her 900 square foot home broken down at approximately 6:15 a.m. after the police knocked, announced their presence, and demanded entry four times within the span of twenty-five seconds. A police officer heard a female voice inside the house after the third "knock-and-announce," but the HPD officers had no reason to believe that Naeole was fleeing or that any evidence was being destroyed. Under these circumstances, we hold that the amount of time afforded to Naeole to respond to the demand for entry was not reasonable, and thus vacate the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ ("ICA") opinion to the contrary.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 4, 2015, HPD officers executed a search warrant at the home of Naeole, seizing "approximately 952.483 grams of a substance resembling methamphetamine, a medicine bottle containing 55 Loraz[e]pam tablets, a medicine bottle containing 79 Tramad[ ]ol tablets, 17.34 grams of marijuana, various purported paraphernalia and United States currency." On December 27, 2016, Naeole was charged by indictment in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit ("circuit court") with one count of promoting a dangerous drug in the first degree, in violation of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes ("HRS") § 712-1241(1)(a)(i) (Supp. 2016), two counts of promoting a harmful drug in the second degree, in violation of HRS § 712-1245(1)(a) (2014), one count of promoting a detrimental drug in the third degree, in violation of HRS § 712-1249 (2014), and one count of possessing drug paraphernalia, in violation of HRS § 329-43.5(a) (Supp. 2016). Prior to trial, Naeole filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the execution of the search warrant. Her motion claimed that HPD's execution of the warrant violated HRS § 803-37¹ and article I, section 7 of the Constitution of the State of Hawai‘i.² Hearings were held on Naeole's motion to suppress on January 16 and March 6, 2018.³

During the hearings, HPD Officer Stephen Roe ("Officer Roe") testified that sixteen police officers accompanied by a supervisor executed the search warrant at Naeole's home. The officers were attired in "green [battle dress uniforms], top and bottom, a load-bearing plate carrier, exterior body armor, a ballistic helmet" and carrying "either [an] M4 [rifle] and a sidearm, Glock 21, or just a Glock 21, depending on [their] role." They arrived at approximately 6:00 a.m.⁴ The "perimeter team" secured the exterior of the home, while the "entry team" "stack[ed] up or form[ed] a stick in front of the residence along the wall[.]" Officer Roe, who was in the entry team, was instructed by his supervisor to initiate the "knock-and-announce procedure[.]" He conducted the procedure, which consists of three knocks and an announcement, four times. During the hearings, Officer Roe demonstrated the four knock-and-announce procedures for the court: "And it's basically like this: (Knocks.) Police. We have a search warrant. Open the door now. (Knocks.) Police. We have a search warrant. Open the door now. (Knocks.) Police. We have a search warrant. Open the door now. (Knocks.) Police. We have a search warrant. Open the door now."

Officer Roe testified that there was no response from within Naeole's home after the first two knock-and-announce procedures, but that after the third, he heard a female voice coming from inside. The voice seemed like it was directed at the officers, but he could not make out the words. He conducted a fourth knock-and-announce procedure, but there was no response. After the fourth knock-and-announce procedure, the officers on the entry team were instructed by their supervisor to breach the front door.

Naeole testified during the hearings that she had just woken up and was right by the hallway, heading toward the bathroom, when she heard banging and then saw police officers enter her home. She testified that she didn't hear any repeated knocking, any announcement that there were police officers at the door, or any request or demand to open the door. She testified that, after they were already in her house, the officers told her they had a search warrant, but that they refused to show her the warrant. She testified that her home is about 900 square feet in size.

Naeole's neighbor, Zachariah Wentling, also testified during the hearings. He testified that he came out his front door when he heard his dogs barking, saw police officers "wrestling with" or "messing with" Naeole's front gate, ran back into his house to grab his phone, and, when he came back out, saw the officers break down Naeole's front door. He testified that when he came back outside, he saw the officers bang on the door, say, "This is the police[,]" and then, without waiting for a response, break down the door. A video he recorded on his phone which showed the officers breaking down the front door of Naeole's home was entered into evidence at the hearings.

The circuit court granted Naeole's motion to suppress and ordered that all evidence seized as a result of the execution of the search warrant would be inadmissible at trial. The court found that Officer Roe's testimony was "credible and compelling[,]" and that, based on his in-court demonstration, the four knock-and-announce procedures took place "in a span of about twenty-five seconds" with "no discernable pause" between each one. The court also found that the officers "heard voices" after the third knock-and-announce procedure, but that "there was no evidence that the occupants were aware of the police presence and were taking steps to destroy any evidence, that would justified [sic] breaching the door based on exigent circumstances." It concluded that, although HPD had complied with the requirements of HRS § 803-37, its execution of the search warrant violated Naeole's right against unreasonable searches and seizures under article I, section 7 of the Hawai‘i Constitution.

The State appealed the circuit court's order to the ICA. The ICA vacated the circuit court's order, holding that, "[u]nder the circumstances of this case, ... Naeole was afforded a reasonable amount of time to respond to HPD's demand for entry to serve the search warrant." State v. Naeole, No. CAAP-18-0000381, 2019 WL 2067113, at *4 (App. May 10, 2019) (mem.). Naeole filed an application for writ of certiorari with this court, which was granted.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"The appellate court reviews a circuit court's ruling on a motion to suppress de novo to determine whether the ruling was right or wrong." State v. Williams, 114 Hawai‘i 406, 409, 163 P.3d 1143, 1146 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Kauhi, 86 Hawai‘i 195, 197, 948 P.2d 1036, 1038 (1997) ).

III. DISCUSSION

The "knock-and-announce" procedure is not a mere formality or police tactic; it is an essential restraint on the power of the State which has deep roots in both the Anglo-American and Hawaiian legal systems. See Miller, 357 U.S. at 313, 78 S.Ct. 1190 ("The requirement of prior notice of authority and purpose before forcing entry into a home is deeply rooted in our heritage and should not be given grudging application."); Garcia, 77 Hawai‘i at 465, 887 P.2d at 675 (tracing the modern knock-and-announce statute back to the 1869 Penal Code of the Hawaiian Kingdom and The King v. Ah Lou You, 3 Haw. 393 (1872) ). "The search warrant serves to protect individuals’ constitutional right to be ‘secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures....’ " State v. Diaz, 100 Hawai‘i 210, 218, 58 P.3d 1257, 1265 (2002) (quoting Hawai‘i Const. art. I, § 7 ). The purpose of the search and seizure provision of the Hawai‘i constitution, and the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution, is to "safeguard individuals from the arbitrary, oppressive, and harassing conduct of government officials." Id. at 217-18,...