State v. McKnight., 319 P.3d 298

Background

McKnight communicated online with an undercover agent posing as a 15‑year‑old (“Chyla”), arranged travel, and was arrested at the airport for electronic enticement; agents seized computers and media from his home under a warrant.
He was indicted for Electronic Enticement (HRS § 707‑756) and Promoting Child Abuse; charges were severed and trial proceeded on Electronic Enticement, where he was convicted.
Pretrial, the circuit court suppressed (1) a custodial statement McKnight gave after initially invoking counsel and (2) evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant that was misdated on its face; the State appealed the suppression of the evidence.
The ICA affirmed the conviction but vacated the suppression order; it held the computer‑use requirement did not apply to all statutory elements, McKnight validly waived counsel after reinitiating, and a clerical misdating did not require suppression.
The Hawai‘i Supreme Court: (1) affirmed that the computer/electronic‑use requirement applies only to the communication element, not the agreement to meet or travel; (2) held the custodial statement was properly suppressed because McKnight had invoked counsel and did not validly waive; and (3) held the search‑warrant evidence need not be suppressed for the judge’s scrivener’s error where issuance date was clear from the record and the warrant was timely executed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State / McKnight)	Defendant's Argument (McKnight / State)	Held
Does HRS § 707‑756 require use of a computer/electronic device for every element (communication, agreement to meet, travel)?	State: computer use need only attach to the communication element; requiring it for travel is absurd.	McKnight: plain text requires computer/electronic use for all three elements (including agreement to meet and travel).	The statute’s computer‑use requirement applies only to the communication element; not to agreeing to meet or physical travel.
Was McKnight’s custodial statement admissible after he initially invoked counsel?	State: McKnight reinitiated and voluntarily waived Miranda; agents’ failure to contact counsel or permit a call did not vitiate waiver.	McKnight: he unequivocally invoked counsel; investigators resumed questioning without securing counsel or reasonably facilitating it; any subsequent waiver was involuntary.	Waiver was not voluntary; statement suppressed. Investigators impermissibly continued after invocation and failed to obtain a valid waiver.
Must evidence seized under a warrant with a misdated issuance date be suppressed under Hawaii law?	State: misdating was a clerical error by the judge; warrant was supported by probable cause, the true issuance date is evident, and suppression would not further exclusionary‑rule purposes.	McKnight: facial misdating rendered the warrant invalid under prior ICA precedent (Endo); suppression required to protect privacy and deter errors.	Evidence not suppressed: clerical error did not invalidate warrant where actual issuance is clear, warrant was supported by probable cause and timely executed; suppression would not advance judicial integrity, privacy, or deterrence under facts here.
Should Endo (misdated warrant requires suppression) be retained?	State: Endo should be overruled in such clerical‑error circumstances.	McKnight: Endo correctly protects privacy and enforces facial validity of warrants under Hawaii Constitution.	Court overruled Endo to the extent it required suppression for similar scrivener’s errors when the record shows issuance and timely execution.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Kotis, [citation="91 Hawai'i 319, 984 P.2d 78"] (Haw. 1999) (statutory interpretation and de novo review of legal questions)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial warnings and waiver standards)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (invocation of right to counsel bars further interrogation until counsel present or defendant reinitiates)
State v. Lopez, [citation="78 Hawai'i 433, 896 P.2d 889"] (Haw. 1995) (Hawai‘i exclusionary‑rule purposes include privacy protection)
State v. Torres, [citation="125 Hawai'i 382, 262 P.3d 1006"] (Haw. 2011) (identifying three purposes of Hawaii’s exclusionary rule: judicial integrity, privacy, deterrence)
State v. Endo, [citation="83 Hawai'i 87, 924 P.2d 581"] (Haw. App. 1996) (prior ICA rule that misdated warrant invalidated search; overruled in part)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
United States v. Hitchcock, 286 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2002) (clerical/post‑dating errors may not invalidate otherwise timely executed warrants)