Hawai'i Legal News

  State v. Lee (HSC February 9, 2021) Background. Honolulu Police Department officers responded to a “suicidal male call” at an ‘Aiea residence. The family let the officers into the home and directed them to a closed bedroom door. Family members said that Joshua Lee was in his room and he had samurai swords in there. They made contact with Lee through the closed door. The did not allow the officers to open the door, but told them he was okay and asked them to leave. The Sgt. Michael Cobb who responded to the call started talking to Lee. He told him that he “needed to grow up” and “be a man.” Lee asked if the officers had a warrant. Sgt. Cobb told him “we don’t need a warrant, dumbass.” Despite Lee’s request that they leave him alone, the officers needed to check if there was a risk that he would harm himself. The officers picked the lock and opened it to at the very least see Lee.   When they did, the door was obstructed. At some point, Lee’s family members asked the po...

  Mott v. City and County of Honolulu (ICA January 30, 2020) Background. The Honolulu Police Department keeps a daily arrest log known as a blotter. The log includes the name of the arrestee and his or her address. For years, HPD would provide a requesting member of the public blotter information containing the address. In 2017, HPD changed its policy and started to disclose only the adult arrest log, which did not include the address. Karen Mott wrote to HPD seeking disclosure of the blotter with the address. The request was denied. Mott filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory relief and an order compelling disclosure of the addresses. The City moved to dismiss the complaint. The circuit court, with the Hon. Judge Gary W. B. Chang presiding, granted the motion. Mott appealed.   The Uniform Information Practices Act Balances Open Government Against Invasion of Privacy. The State seeks to “conduct[] government business as openly as possible . . .tempered by a recognition of ...

Naipo v. Border (HSC May 18, 2011) Background. Eshell Mitchell sued the Yuen family after Braddah, the Yuen dog, bit her. At the time of the incident, Mitchell was living with Jennifer Naipo. Mitchell claimed that the Naipo was bitten several times by Braddah several months before it bit her. The Yuens denied that their dog had bitten anyone. Naipo was deposed. She didn't have a lawyer. The Yuen's lawyer told her that she could refuse to answer a question that she believed invaded her personal privacy. Naipo answered all the questions. Naipo testified that she was not taken to the hospital for an injury to her forehead but that she went to the Wahiawa Hospital because a different Yuen dog, Misty, had been bitten her several times on the arm. Mitchell deposed Nanea Yuen. Nanea testified that Misty bit Naipo on her forehead, not her arm, and that they had to go to the hospital for that. In light of the conflicting testimony, Mitchell sought a subpoena d...

In re TKC (ICA June 24, 2009) Background. The State filed a petition against TC, a juvenile, alleging ten counts of engaging in sexual conduct with a person less than fourteen years old. TC was less than fourteen years old at the time of the incidents. The family court conducted a "stipulated trial." Police reports and the reports of a psychologist were stipulated into evidence for the family court--as the trier of fact--to review. The stipulation did not discuss TC's waiver of his right to testify; it merely said that the stipulation was "through and upon the advice of his attorney." After the evidence was submitted, TC's parents filed a motion to examine the makers of the various reports. The motion was opposed by the State on the grounds that the parents lacked standing. The family court denied the motion and entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and rendered a decision that TC was a "law violator" for all counts. The family...

State v. Sunderland (HSC Sept. 21, 2007) Background. A Big-Island police officer looking for a missing child went to Sunderland's home, a known hang-out spot of the child. The officer saw in plain view a pipe used to smoke marijuana, and inquired about it. Sunderland told the officer that the pipe was his and that he smokes marijuana for religious purposes. Sunderland even produced his "Cannabis Ministry" identification card to the officer. Sunderland was arrested on the spot. In the district court Sunderland was charged with Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree (HRS § 712-1243). Sunderland filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that smoking marijuana as a member of the Cannabis Ministry was a constitutionally-protected activity related to the First Amendment. The motion was denied and the district court found him guilty as charged, and fined $150. On appeal, Sunderland argued that the prosecution for possessing drugs in his own home for religious purposes vi...