State v. Curtis.
139 Haw. 486
| Haw. | 2017Background
- FedEx employee discovered ~8 lbs. of suspected marijuana in a parcel addressed to a Kaua‘i residence; KPD obtained the parcel and placed a tracking device in it for a controlled delivery.
- KPD applied for an anticipatory search warrant (to search the residence after delivery); the supporting affidavit described the controlled delivery and tracking device.
- The issued warrant did not state the triggering condition (delivery/opening); it commanded officers to search the premises “forthwith” and to execute within 10 days.
- After a controlled delivery, the tracking device indicated the parcel was opened and KPD executed the warrant, seizing marijuana and other evidence.
- Defendants moved to suppress, arguing the anticipatory warrant was invalid under article I, §7 of the Hawai‘i Constitution and HRS §803‑31 because it did not identify the triggering condition on its face; the trial court denied suppression and the ICA affirmed.
- The Hawai‘i Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that under the Hawai‘i Constitution an anticipatory search warrant must state the triggering condition on its face; it vacated the ICA judgment and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether anticipatory warrants are permissible under article I, §7 (Haw. Const.) | State: Anticipatory warrants are allowed and consistent with article I, §7 when supported by probable cause; they encourage judicial oversight. | Petitioners: Anticipatory warrants present special privacy risks and must be strictly constrained. | Held: Anticipatory warrants are permissible under article I, §7 when supported by probable cause. |
| Whether the warrant must identify the triggering condition on its face | State/ICA: Grubbs controls; neither the Fourth Amendment nor Hawai‘i rules require the triggering condition to appear on the warrant itself if the affidavit identifies it and it is met before execution. | Petitioners: Hawai‘i Constitution provides greater privacy protection; triggering condition must be on the warrant itself to limit executive discretion and protect privacy. | Held: Under article I, §7, an anticipatory warrant must identify the triggering condition on its face. |
| Whether the warrant here was fatally defective because it did not state the triggering condition | State/ICA: Affidavit identified the triggering event and police waited for delivery/opening before executing; therefore search was valid. | Petitioners: Face of warrant omitted the condition, so execution exceeded authority and violated Hawai‘i privacy protections. | Held: Warrant invalid because it failed to state the triggering condition on its face; case vacated and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (Anticipatory warrants constitutional under Fourth Amendment; triggering condition need not appear on warrant itself)
- State v. Scott, 87 Haw. 80, 951 P.2d 1243 (Haw. 1998) (ICA criteria for anticipatory warrants; later addressed by Scott II and legislative change)
- United States v. Hotal, 143 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 1998) (when execution depends on future conditions, warrant itself must state clear, explicit, narrow conditions)
- United States v. Garcia, 882 F.2d 699 (2d Cir. 1989) (anticipatory warrants may provide sufficient probable cause when conditioned on likely delivery)
- United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (warrant/authority helps assure the limits of search power and notice to owner)
- State v. Torres, 125 Haw. 382, 262 P.3d 1006 (Haw. 2011) (purposes of Hawai‘i exclusionary rule: judicial integrity, privacy protection, deterrence)