State v. Quiday., SCWC-13-0004085

Background

HPD received an anonymous tip that marijuana was being grown at 94-325 Kahualena St. (Waipahu Residence); Officer Hanawahine verified the address via Google Earth.
Officer Hanawahine performed three helicopter flyovers (about 420 feet) over two days and observed two rows (~20–25) of potted plants in the residence’s curtilage that he believed were marijuana.
Ground-level checks could not see the backyard because the property was enclosed by walls, gates, and fences; the plants were not covered by tarps or structures.
A search warrant was issued based on Hanawahine’s affidavit recounting the aerial observations; execution of the warrant recovered ~20 plants and led to Quiday’s arrest and criminal charges.
Quiday moved to suppress evidence as the product of unconstitutional aerial surveillance; the circuit court denied suppression, the ICA vacated and remanded holding the flights were a search under the Hawai‘i Constitution, and the State sought certiorari.
The Hawai‘i Supreme Court affirmed the ICA’s judgment (on different grounds), holding targeted aerial surveillance of a residence/curtilage for detecting crime is a constitutional "search."

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether aerial flyovers that observed plants in a home’s curtilage constitute a "search" under art. I, § 7 (Haw. Const.)	State: aerial observation from lawful altitude is not a search because the yard was exposed to airspace and not covered	Quiday: he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his backyard (shielded from ground view by fences/walls); targeted flyovers were searches	Held: Purposeful aerial surveillance of a residence/curtilage to detect crime is a "search" under art. I, § 7 and here was unconstitutional and warrantless
Whether evidence obtained via a warrant based on aerial observations is admissible	State: warrant supported by officer observations; flights complied with regulations and were not intrusive	Quiday: warrant was fruit of illegal aerial surveillance and must be suppressed	Held: Because the flights were searches, the warrant was tainted; evidence was fruit of poisonous tree and suppression was required
Whether prior Hawai‘i cases (Stachler, Knight) control	State: those precedents allow aerial observations not constituting searches in similar contexts	Quiday: prior cases distinguishable because those facts did not involve curtilage shielded from ground view	Held: Stachler and Knight are factually distinguishable and do not control; totality-of-circumstances applies
Proper analytical rule for aerial surveillance under Hawai‘i Constitution	State: apply federal approach (Ciraolo/Riley) or ICA’s five-factor test	Quiday: adopt rule protecting curtilage from targeted aerial surveillance	Held: Court adopts California Supreme Court’s rule (People v. Cook): purposeful aerial surveillance of residence/curtilage to detect crime is a search under art. I, § 7

Key Cases Cited

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (U.S. 1986) (U.S. Supreme Court held naked-eye aerial observation from public navigable airspace did not constitute Fourth Amendment search in that factual setting)
Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1989) (U.S. Supreme Court held police observation of greenhouse from helicopter at lawful altitude did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search in that factual setting)
People v. Cook, 710 P.2d 299 (Cal. 1985) (California Supreme Court held purposeful aerial surveillance of a yard to detect crime is a search under state constitution; adopted as persuasive authority)
State v. Stachler, 570 P.2d 1323 (Haw. 1977) (Hawai‘i case concluding aerial observation did not constitute a search under facts presented; relied on totality of circumstances)
State v. Knight, 621 P.2d 370 (Haw. 1980) (Hawai‘i case similarly holding aerial observation of greenhouse was not a search under its facts)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (articulated two-part reasonable expectation of privacy test adopted by Hawai‘i courts)