Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court–No. SCWC-18-0000381
No. SCWC-18-0000381, Tuesday, November 19, 2019, 5 p.m.
STATE OF HAWAII, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DAWN NAEOLE, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:
University of Hawaii at Manoa
William S. Richardson School of Law
2515 Dole Street
Honolulu, HI 96822
Attorney for petitioner:
Phyllis J. Hironaka, Deputy Public Defender
Attorney for respondent:
Brian R. Vincent, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 09/23/19.
COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.
Shortly after 6 a.m. on September 4, 2015, the Honolulu Police Department executed a search warrant at the home of Dawn Naeole. Naeole was subsequently indicted on five counts based on evidence seized during the search of her home. She moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search violated Article I, Section 7 of the Hawai i Constitution because she was not given a reasonable amount of time to respond to the police officers’ demand for entry.
After a hearing, the Circuit Court of the First Circuit found that the police had forcibly entered Naeole’s home after following a “knock-and-announce” procedure four times in the span of twenty-five seconds. The “knock-and-announce” procedure consisted of a police officer knocking on Naeole’s door three times and then saying, “Police. We have a search warrant. Open the door now.” The circuit court held that the execution of the search warrant violated Naeole’s constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures, and thus granted Naeole’s motion to suppress the evidence.
On appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals vacated the circuit court’s order, holding that the amount of time for Naeole to respond was reasonable under the circumstances. Naeole filed an application for writ of certiorari in the supreme court, presenting the following question:
Whether the ICA gravely erred in (1) vacating the circuit court’s order granting Naeole’s Motion to Suppress; (2) ruling that the circuit court wrongly concluded that, on the facts of this case, the police failed to allow Naeole a reasonable amount of time to respond to their demand for entry; and (3) holding that (a) Naeole was afforded a reasonable amount of time to respond to the police’s demand for entry; and (b) the circuit court should have denied Naeole’s Motion to Suppress.