Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-5

Current through the 2024 Legislative Session

Section 803-5 - By police officer without warrant

(a) A police officer or other officer of justice, may, without warrant, arrest and detain for examination any person when the officer has probable cause to believe that such person has committed any offense, whether in the officer's presence or otherwise.

(b) For purposes of this section, a police officer has probable cause to make an arrest when the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge and of which the officer has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that a crime has been or is being committed.

HRS § 803-5

PC 1869, c 49, §5; RL 1925, §3971; RL 1935, §5404; RL 1945, §10705; RL 1955, § 255-5; HRS § 708-5; ren L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1980, c 105, §1; am L 1981, c 186, §1; am L 1982, c 221, §1

Rules of Court

See HRPP rule 5.

Search without warrant. 278 F.2d 386. Held legal. 9 H. 522;14 Haw. 586;22 Haw. 597, 602;37 Haw. 189, aff'd163 F.2d 490; 48 H. 204, 397 P.2d 558. Police officer may arrest for a misdemeanor without warrant if, based on personal knowledge, police officer has probable cause to believe offense is being committed in police officer's presence.56 Haw. 383,538 P.2d 320. No reason to conclude that warrantless arrests for "violation" are proscribed.64 H. 130, 637 P.2d 1105. Defendant's warrantless arrest for a petty misdemeanor, made twenty days after the alleged crime was committed, was unlawful; if police believe that waiting days or weeks to arrest a defendant is the most appropriate action under the circumstances, then the police cannot rely on this section and must obtain a warrant pursuant to § 803-1.107 H. 1,108 P.3d 304. As subsequent events can neither support nor invalidate the existence of probable cause at the time of the search or seizure, the invalidation of defendant's prior conviction (and probation order) on appeal did not retroactively invalidate probable cause for an arrest based on violation of that probation order; thus, there were no changed circumstances that required the trial court to allow withdrawal of defendant's no contest plea to prevent manifest injustice and thus no abuse of discretion in the denial of defendant's motion.109 Haw. 458,128 P.3d 340. In light of facts known to the police at time of arrest, the police reasonably believed that passenger seated in right rear seat of car violated § 134-6(c) (1991) either as a principal or accomplice. 9 H. App. 551,851 P.2d 926. Cited:56 Haw. 675,548 P.2d 268. See 35 H. 232, aff'd 119 F.2d 936. See case notes under § 803-9 re detention for examination.

See Const. Art. I, §7. As to detention for examination, see § 803-9 .