STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. RANDALL HOFFMAN, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee.

[ Listen to the audio recording in MP3 format ]

[ Watch the video recording on YouTube ]

The above-captioned case was set for oral argument on the merits at:

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

The oral argument was also livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ʻŌlelo Community Television olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee RANDALL HOFFMAN:

     Benjamin E. Lowenthal, Deputy Public Defender

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant STATE OF HAWAI‘I:

     Tracy Murakami, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE:     Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/29/24.

NOTE:     Amended Notice of Setting for Oral Argument due to rescheduling from 07/02/24 at 10:30 A.M. to 07/23/24 at 10:30 A.M., filed 07/01/24.

COURT:    Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens.

Brief Description:

Hawaiʻi State Department of Land and Natural Resources Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement (“DLNR DOCARE”) Officer Warren Tavares (“Officer Tavares”) encountered Randall Hoffman (“Hoffman”) in a trailer stopped on a Kauaʻi roadside, with Hoffman in it actively dumping green waste.  Officer Tavares stated that he believed probable cause existed for Hoffman’s arrest at that time.  At no point during the ensuing encounter was Hoffman advised of his state Miranda rights. 

Officer Tavares pointed to a sign prohibiting illegal dumping and informed Hoffman that what he was doing was a crime.  Hoffman cursed back.  Officer Tavares then told Hoffman that dumping green waste there was illegal and could subject him to a citation or to arrest for criminal littering.  He added that the State and multiple agencies had recently worked together and spent over $100,000 to clean up that area, which was a high crime area with many abandoned cars and drug activity.  Hoffman again cursed.  Hoffman then said he had been turned away from the Hanapepe Refuse Station because his trailer was too big.  Officer Tavares told Hoffman he would have to take up that matter with the county and that he was without jurisdiction to address that.  Hoffman again replied with a curse.

Officer Tavares then went into Hoffman’s trailer and handcuffed him behind his back.  He then moved Hoffman off the trailer.  As Officer Tavares was retrieving his citation book from his vehicle, Hoffman moved his handcuffed arms to the front of his body, re-entered his trailer, and resumed throwing green waste onto the ground.  Officer Tavares entered Hoffman’s trailer, and the two ended up scuffling on the ground.  Hoffman wrapped his legs around Officer Tavares and squeezed, causing Officer Tavares pain.  After Officer Tavares punched Hoffman twice in the face, Hoffman stated, “Okay, I’m done.”

Hoffman was charged with assaulting a law enforcement officer, resisting arrest, and criminal littering.  Before trial, the state filed a motion to determine the voluntariness of Hoffman’s statements.  The circuit court denied the motion because although Officer Tavares testified he had probable cause to arrest Hoffman the moment he arrived at the scene, he did not Mirandize Hoffman at any point during the encounter. 

The State appealed. On appeal, both parties agreed Hoffman was in custody; at issue was whether he was interrogated.  The Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”) issued a summary disposition order (“SDO”) affirming in part and vacating in part the circuit court’s order.  The ICA affirmed the inadmissibility of Hoffman’s explanation that he had been turned away at the Hanapepe Refuse Station because his trailer was too big.  The ICA vacated that part of the circuit court’s order ruling Hoffman’s other statements inadmissible.  The ICA ruled that the words or conduct Officer Tavares used in eliciting those statements were “normally attendant to arrest and custody” and not “interrogation.”  The ICA cited to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes § 803-6, titled “Arrest, how made,” which states that an arresting officer, among other things, “should give the party arrested clearly to understand for what cause the person undertakes to make the arrest.”  

Hoffman presents a single question on certiorari:  “Did the [ICA] gravely err when it ruled that an officer’s conduct and statements ‘normally attendant to arrest and custody’ could not arise to an interrogation triggering Miranda warnings?”