State v. Torres, 262 P.3d 1006

Torres, a Hawaii defendant, was implicated in a 1992 Navy Exchange theft and later charged with murder in Hawaii state court.
Federal investigators searched Torres’s car on Pearl Harbor Naval Base (PHNB) under a Command Authorization; a glovebox contained a revolver and a scanner, and a bag in the trunk contained cash and papers.
A motion to suppress the vehicle searches and cash/whatever testimony was denied in 2007; ICA vacated a 2009 conviction on grounds including Robinson’s lay testimony but left other issues intact.
The ICA held that federal law governed the searches, and that the evidence could be admitted under federal standards; the Hawaii Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether Hawaii constitutional protections also apply.
The Hawaii Supreme Court ultimately held that, for evidence obtained in another jurisdiction, Hawaii’s Constitution and applicable case law must be considered, and that the searches were valid under Hawaii law as impliedly consented to by Torres upon entering PHNB, while affirming the ICA’s handling of other aspects of the case.
The amended decision preserves admissibility of the evidence and affirms the petition for writ of certiorari to correct the ICA’s analysis regarding admissibility of federal-evidence in a Hawaii state prosecution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hawaii exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained by federal officers on federal property.	State contends federal-law standards apply to suppression.	Torres argues Hawaii law should govern suppression.	Hawaii constitution applies to admissibility; evidence admitted.
Whether Torres impliedly consented to searches on PHNB under Hawaii law.	State relies on consent implied by entering PHNB and notice.	Torres argues no valid consent under Hawaii standards.	Consent implied from entering PHNB and posted notice; searches lawful under Hawaii law.
Whether Gant and other federal-warrant-exception rulings apply to the Hawaii case.	ICA’s view that federal-law searches were controlling.	Gant not controlling; base-Consent analysis suffices.	Gant not applicable; Hawaii analysis governs since searches occurred on federal base but consent and exceptions align with Hawaii law.
Whether the ICA properly treated Bridges and whether Bridges should control Hawaii’s approach.	Bridges should control, applying federal grounds for on-base searches.	Bridges not controlling; Hawaii must weigh state constitutional rights.	Bridges overruled to the extent inconsistent; Hawaii Constitution governs admissibility.

State v. Bridges, 83 Hawai‘i 187 (1996) (exclusionary rule analysis with three-factor test (judicial integrity, privacy, deterrence))
State v. Pattioay, 78 Hawai‘i 455 (1995) (purpose of exclusionary rule including privacy and deterrence)
Lopez v. State, 78 Hawai‘i 435, 896 P.2d 901 (1995) (broader privacy protection under Hawaii Constitution)
Hawaii v. Hanson, 97 Hawaii 71, 34 P.3d 1 (2001) (consent and implied consent to searches on base; Hanson II)
United States v. Jenkins, 986 F.2d 76 (4th Cir. 1993) (base-entry searches and implied consent on military installations)
State v. Brighter, 63 Haw. 95, 621 P.2d 374 (1980) (probable cause and command authorizations in Hawaii context)
Rodriguez I, 823 P.2d 1029 (Or. Ct. App. 1992) (state constitution governs admissibility of evidence, even if seized illegally by federal agents)
Cardenas-Alvarez, 25 P.3d 227 (N.M. 2001) (state constitution governs admissibility of evidence seized by federal agents)