State v. Pacquing., 297 P.3d 188

Background

Pacquing was charged with one count of unauthorized possession of confidential personal information (UPCPI) after two traffic stops where he used Complainant's name, date of birth, and address.
At the March 23, 2008 stop, Pacquing identified himself as Complainant and provided birth date and address; Officer Lum later issued two citations in Complainant’s name.
Complainant later informed police that Pacquing did not own the listed vehicle or belong to the March stop; Pacquing was arrested on April 7, 2008 when Complainant identified him.
The circuit court dismissed the UPCPI charge as a de minimis violation under HRS § 702-236(1)(b), without prejudice to charging Unsworn Falsification to Authorities (UFTA).
The ICA vacated the dismissal and remanded for consideration of all relevant circumstances; the circuit court’s decision was appealed by the State.
The Hawaii Supreme Court held the circuit court abused its discretion in dismissing as de minimis and remanded for further proceedings, affirming the ICA, but with different reasoning.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Pacquing's conduct meet de minimis standards?	State: conduct caused or threatened UPCPI harm and wasn’t trivial.	Pacquing: conduct was de minimis under Park factors; should be dismissed or charged UFTA.	No; conduct was not de minimis; UPCPI conviction warranted.
Was the circuit court required to consider all Park factors and attendant circumstances?	State: all relevant circumstances must be considered; no prejudice in remand.	Pacquing: proper to rely on stipulations; circuit court considered relevant factors.	Yes; the circuit court abused discretion by not properly evaluating all relevant factors.
Should UPCPI be charged instead of UFTA given the facts?	State: UPCPI appropriate to deter identity-theft-like conduct and to penalize unlawful possession.	Pacquing: UFTA is more appropriate for the conduct; UPCPI should not apply.	UPCPI charge appropriate; UFTA charge not dispositive for the de minimis ruling.
Did the record before the circuit court include all relevant facts about the possession of confidential information?	State: record included facts about the neighbor relationship and information learned; more evidence could exist.	Pacquing: record insufficient to prove triviality; lack of benign explanation and circumstances.	Record was insufficiently developed; remand required to consider full circumstances.
Did the dissent’s focus on memory-only possession affect the decision?	State: analysis should consider whether any form of possession violates UPCPI; memory is possession.	Pacquing: memory-only possession may not fit 'in any form' without recording; doctrine of ejusdem generis.	Issue resolved on statutory interpretation; the majority’s approach to memory possession was improper for de minimis assessment.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Park, 55 Haw. 610 (Haw. 1974) (establishes Park factors for de minimis dismissal)
State v. Rapozo, 123 Hawai'i 329 (Haw. 2010) (requires consideration of all relevant circumstances in de minimis analysis)
Viernes, 92 Hawai'i 130 (Haw. 1999) (de minimis analysis in drug possession context; harm must be linked to statute purpose)
State v. Vance, 61 Haw. 291 (Haw. 1979) (harshness of conviction as a factor in de minimis analysis)
State v. Fukagawa, 100 Hawai'i 498 (Haw. 2002) (burden of proof on defense for de minimis)