HSC Enforces Deadlines in Forfeiture Proceedings

By -

 Alm v. Eleven (11) Products Direct Sweepstakes Machines, et al. (HSC December 20, 2021)

Background. On September 26, 2012, Honolulu Police Department officers got a warrant to search a business called Winner’z Zone to look for gambling-related machines. They find 77 Product Direct Sweepstakes (PDS) machines (which look like this), cash, and other evidence believed to be related to unlawful gambling. For two years the property was held in police custody before HPD initiated forfeiture proceedings. The criminal investigation was abandoned, but the police held onto the machines. On September 12, 2014, the police generated a new report and report number stating the machines were re-seized for forfeiture purposes.

 

A week later, the police requested the prosecutor to initiate proceedings to forfeit the machines. On September 22, 2014, the prosecution filed a petition for administrative forfeiture with the Department of Attorney General. A business known as PJY Enterprises, LLC challenged the seizure and requested judicial review of the administrative forfeiture. Judicial forfeiture proceedings began on December 19, 2014. PJY moved to dismiss the proceedings because it was untimely and “reseizure” for forfeiture purposes violated the deadlines in HRS Chapter 712A. The circuit court—the Hon. Judge Randal K. O. Lee presiding—granted the motion. The prosecution appealed. The ICA vacated the dismissal order. PJY petitioned for a writ of certiorari.

 

There are no “Internal Deadlines” in the Forfeiture Statutes. The forfeiture statutes contain several deadlines. When the police or government agency seize property for forfeiture, the “seizing agency” must “make reasonable efforts to give notice of seizure for forfeiture . . . within thirty days of seizure.” HRS § 712A-7(3). The seizing agency must also “send to a prosecuting attorney a written request for forfeiture within thirty days[.]” HRS § 712A-7(4). The prosecutor then has 45 days to initiate forfeiture proceedings. HRS § 712A-9(1).

 

However, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, forfeiture proceedings under this chapter may be commenced at any time within the period in which a criminal proceeding may be instituted for a covered offense pursuant to section 701-108.” HRS § 712A-17.

 

The police here did nothing for two years before sending its written request for forfeiture. The HSC rejected the ICA’s analysis that HRS § 712A-17 allows the two-year delay. That HSC turned to legislative history and noted that the Legislature “made explicit its intent that the remedy for noncompliance with HRS § 712A-9’s deadlines was the return of the property.” In the end, the HSC held that the police and prosecution’s failure to comply with the deadline in HRS §§ 712A-7 and 712A-9 require return of the property.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

HSC overrules a nine-month-old case and goes back to the bright-line rule to determine “custody” in custodial interrogation

By -
  State v. Hewitt (HSC March 15, 2023) Background. Hawai'i County Officer Chandler Nancio and another officer were called to the Kona Community Hospital in the middle of the night to see a possible victim of assault. An unknown man dropped Cyrina Hewitt off at the emergency room. He found Hewitt awake with contusions on her face, her eyes were swollen shut, a laceration was on her ear, and she had a broken breast plate. She was disoriented and “rambling incoherently.” She did not know where she was or why she as in the hospital.   Officer Nancio waited for the nurse to treat her and then asked for her name and birth date. He stayed at her bedside and asked her questions about how she got her injuries. Hewitt at first said she had pink-eye, but then said it was a stye. Then paramedics came by and asked what was going on. The paramedics said that they saw a truck’s taillights sticking out of the bushes on the side of the road.   Sgt. Mekia Rose followed up on the truck and
Read more

Judge accidentally strikes the entire expert opinion in a murder trial

By -
  State v. Sylva (HSC December 29, 2023) Background. Kumulipo Sylva was indicted for murder in the second degree after he was arrested for killing Eduardo Cerezo in the bathroom of the Queen Kaahumanu Shopping Center. Sylva raised the insanity defense and three examiners were appointed to determine penal responsibility. All three concluded that Sylva suffered from a physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect. Two out of the three believed he lacked capacity under the insanity defense was not criminally responsible.   At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that Cerezo and Kyle Keoho got on the bus in Pukalani when they saw Sylva on the bus. Cerezo called Sylva a “pussy” and threatened to beat him up. When the bus got to the shopping center, the three of them got off and Sylva challenged Cerezo to a fight. Cerezo said he did not want to fight and Sylva walked away from them.   Cerezo and Keoho went to the bathroom together. Sylva also went into the bathroom with a ca
Read more

Officer’s False Testimony Prompts New Trial Even Though it did not Pertain to the Defendant’s Guilt

By -
State v. Stone (HSC June 15, 2020) Background. Kentaru Stone was charged with promoting a dangerous drug in the third degree. The prosecution provided five Honolulu Police Department reports to the defense in discovery. The lead officer in the police investigation was HPD Officer Douglas Korenic II. The police department also has a “found property policy.” Property recovered after an arrest that does not belong to the arrestee is itemized and listed a “found property” for others to claim. The only found property report here was an iPhone. In the prosecution’s opening statement, the prosecutor said that Officer Korenic approached a man at a picnic table at Ala Moana Beach Park at 3:45 in the morning. He talked to the man “when all of a sudden the defendant makes a arm gesture. He uses his arm and he flicks away a small baggie, which Officer Korenic . . . recognizes this substance to possibly be crystal methamphetamine.” The defense posed an alternative theory. Counsel in her open
Read more