State v. Jenkins

24 Citing cases

  1. State v. Ortiz

    67 Haw. 181 (Haw. 1984)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that "a protective weapons search must be `reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place'" (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 20)

    Bennett testified he reached for the knapsack because of Ortiz's "suspicious behavior at that time, the answers he was giving me" and the "[e]arly morning hours, he had no right to be there as far as I was concerned." Prior to trial Ortiz moved to suppress the handgun, contending that once a law enforcement officer reduces personal property to his possession, the officer may not search the property either as incident to a valid investigative stop, see e.g., Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) or as incident to a lawful arrest, relying on United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977) and State v. Jenkins, 62 Haw. 660, 619 P.2d 108 (1980). The State sought to justify the warrantless search under several exceptions to the warrant requirement: as a protective search for weapons under Terry, as incident to an arrest, and under a "plain feel" or "plain touch" analog of the "plain view" exception.

  2. State v. Lee

    NO. CAAP-16-0000797 (Haw. Ct. App. May. 31, 2019)

    E.g. State v. Jenkins, 62 Haw. 660, 662, 619 P.2d 108, 110 (1980). The established exceptions to the warrant requirement in Hawai'i are: when there is probable cause and exigent circumstances, probationary status, consensual searches, preincarceration searches, open view, "automobile exception[,]" stop and frisk, and plain view.

  3. State v. Ortiz

    4 Haw. App. 143 (Haw. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 8 times

    Ortiz's subjective expectation is one which society is prepared to recognize as reasonable since knapsacks are common repositories of personal effects. State v. Jenkins, 62 Haw. 660, 619 P.2d 108 (1980) (knapsack); United States v. Meier, 602 F.2d 253 (10th Cir. 1979) (backpack). Ortiz's reasonable expectation of privacy thus generally entitled him to be free from a warrantless search and seizure of his knapsack, including the feeling or opening thereof.

  4. State v. Wong

    68 Haw. 221 (Haw. 1985)   Cited 15 times
    Holding warrantless search of handbag an unreasonable search despite defendant having stated he had vial of cocaine therein

    This expectation of privacy, however, is diminished with regard to automobiles. See State v. Jenkins, 62 Haw. 660, 663, 619 P.2d 108, 111 (1980). Furthermore, no expectation of privacy exists when the individual exposes his actions in open view to the general public.

  5. State v. Tagaolo

    93 Haw. 314 (Haw. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 4 times
    Holding officer's suspicion that firearm and ammunition were in fanny bag was fruit of poisonous tree of his improper warrantless search of fanny bag by feeling its contents, rendering search warrant invalid and requiring suppression of items found in fanny bag

    In Tagaolo's case, Tagaolo had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his fanny bag. He exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy which society recognizes as reasonable. See State v. Jenkins, 62 Haw. 660, 619 P.2d 108 (1980) (knapsack), and United States v. Meier, 602 F.2d 253 (10th Cir. 1979) (backpack). Tagaolo's reasonable expectation of privacy entitled him to be free from all warrantless searches of the contents of his fanny bag.

  6. Robbins v. California

    453 U.S. 420 (1981)   Cited 344 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Robbins, a companion case to Belton, the Court held that police officers cannot open closed, opaque containers found in the trunk of a car during a lawful but warrantless search.

    This is particularly appropriate given the State's understandable reluctance to argue an issue that many courts have considered to be foreclosed by Sanders. See, e.g., United States v. Rigales, 630 F.2d 364 (CA5 1980); United States v. MacKay, 606 F.2d 264 (CA9 1979); State v. Jenkins, 619 P.2d 108 (Haw. 1980).

  7. State v. Ikimaka

    465 P.3d 654 (Haw. 2020)   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Even if KPD had, without the dog sniff, obtained a search warrant to search inside the truck for Numazawa's purse, it should have been readily identifiable and probable cause would have been required for a warrant to allow a further search of the contents of purses within the truck. See State v. Jenkins, 62 Haw. 660, 619 P.2d 108 (1980) (requiring search warrant to search personal luggage taken by police from automobiles); State v. Wong, 68 Haw. 221, 708 P.2d 825 (1985) (holding warrantless search of handbag an unreasonable search despite defendant having stated he had vial of cocaine therein); State v. Wallace, 80 Hawai‘i 382, 405, 910 P.2d 695, 718 (1996) (holding that forty-three heat-sealed clear plastic packets containing cocaine seized during warrant allowing search of automobile for marijuana were not "closed" containers with a reasonable expectation of privacy requiring a warrant to conduct a further search).Hence, the circuit court should have granted Ikimaka's motion to suppress.

  8. State v. Wiley

    69 Haw. 589 (Haw. 1988)   Cited 9 times

    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.

  9. State v. Phillips

    67 Haw. 535 (Haw. 1985)   Cited 19 times
    Adopting the rule that " search is not to be made legal by what it turns up" and that a search "is good or bad when it starts and does not change character from its success"

    State v. Kender, 60 Haw. 301, 307, 588 P.2d 447, 451 (1978); State v. Elderts, 62 Haw. 495, 617 P.2d 89 (1980)." State v. Jenkins, 62 Haw. 660, 662, 619 P.2d 108, 110 (1980); see also State v. Fields, 67 Haw. 268, 281, 686 P.2d 1379, 1389 (1984); State v. Ortiz, 67 Haw. 181, 184, 683 P.2d 822, 825 (1984). The State would have us approve the search of the defendant's car under the automobile exception established in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925).

  10. State v. Fields

    67 Haw. 268 (Haw. 1984)   Cited 57 times
    Holding a warrantless search of a probationer must be supported by reasonable suspicion

    If anything is settled in the law of search and seizure, it is that a search without a warrant issued upon probable cause is unreasonable per se, "subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967); State v. Jenkins, 62 Haw. 660, 662, 619 P.2d 108, 110 (1980). Yet as we noted, "there is considerable authority supporting the proposition that probationers may lawfully be subjected to searches which, absent their probation status, would be deemed unlawful because of the absence of probable cause or a search warrant or both."