Skip to Content

Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court — No. SCWC-15-0000848

No. SCWC-15-0000848, Thursday, December 7, 2017, 11:15 a.m.

KEITH M. KANESHIRO, in his official capacity as the Prosecuting Attorney of the City and County of Honolulu, on behalf of the State of Hawai`i, Respondent/Petitioner-Appellant, vs. ELEVEN (11) PRODUCTS DIRECT SWEEPSTAKES MACHINES (TOTAL ESTIMATED VALUE: $38,500.00), FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY SEVEN DOLLARS IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY ($457.00); ONE (1) CAM SECURITY DIGITAL RECORDING SYSTEM (ESTIMATED VALUE: $200.00) (TOTAL AGGREGATE VALUE: $39,157.00), Respondent/Defendant-Appellee, and PJY ENTERPRISES, Petitioner/Claimant-Appellee, and WINNER’Z ZONE; APRIL WHITING-HARAGUCHI, TRACY YOSHIMURA, and WENDY WAGNER, Respondents/Interested Persons-Appellees.

The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali`iolani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

Attorney for Petitioner PJY Enterprises:

Keith M. Kiuchi

Attorney for Respondent State of Hawai`i:

Kurt Nakamatsu, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 10/03/17.

COURT: MER, C.J., PAN, SSM, RWP, and MDW, JJ.

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

This case addresses whether the government’s confiscation of “Products Direct Sweepstakes” machines comported with the relevant civil forfeiture statute, Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712A, and due process requirements.

Starting in September 2012, the Honolulu Police Department began seizing the machines from six Winner’z Zone locations because the government deemed the machines to be in violation of Hawai`i gambling statutes. The machines remained in police custody until they were re-seized for forfeiture in September 2014. PJY Enterprises, LLC, owner of the machines, challenges the government’s seizure for forfeiture under the Hawai` i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712A, a chapter which pertains to civil forfeiture. PJY Enterprises, LLC also asserts that the seizure for forfeiture violates its due process rights.