State v. Trinque., 140 Haw. 269

On March 19, 2009 KPD arrested Rick Trinque in a pasture suspected of cultivating marijuana; he was handcuffed and remained in custody from that point.
While still in the field an officer asked how he entered the pasture, eliciting Statement 1 (spontaneous admission that he climbed over a fence).
Lt. Richard Rosa (plainclothes, badge visible) approached, identified himself, referenced having assisted Trinque’s daughter, made several trust-building assurances, and told Trinque not to make statements until at the station; Trinque then made Statement 2 (admission about being caught and needing money).
At the station Lt. Rosa and Officer Silva (both present) administered Miranda warnings; during advisement Trinque said he wanted an attorney and then made Statement 3 (another admission) before any recorded interview; officers did not record the interrogation and notes were destroyed.
The circuit court suppressed Statements 1–3 (finding Statements 1 and 2 were pre-Miranda custodial interrogation and Statement 3 was fruit of the prior illegality). The ICA reversed as to Statements 2 and 3; the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issue	State's Argument	Trinque's Argument	Held
Whether Statement 2 was elicited by unlawful pre‑Miranda custodial interrogation	Lt. Rosa was merely developing rapport and advising not to speak until at the station; his comments were innocuous pleasantries	Lt. Rosa’s assurances and personal references were designed to induce trust and were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response	Statement 2 was obtained by unlawful pre‑Miranda custodial interrogation and is inadmissible
Whether Statement 3 (post‑Miranda) was admissible or a "fruit of the poisonous tree" from Statements 1 and/or 2	Miranda warnings, change of location, and lack of explicit reference to prior statements demonstrate attenuation and independent origin of Statement 3	Statement 3 was temporally and practically connected to the prior illegality (same officers present, short time gap, no intervening counsel) and thus tainted	Statement 3 was tainted by Statements 1 and 2 (not sufficiently attenuated) and is inadmissible

State v. Joseph, 109 Hawaiʻi 482, 128 P.3d 795 (2006) (Miranda interrogation includes words or actions reasonably likely to elicit incriminating responses)
State v. Kazanas, 138 Hawaiʻi 23, 375 P.3d 1261 (2016) (distinguishing innocuous pleasantry from interrogation when officer knows circumstances and seeks information)
State v. Eli, 126 Hawaiʻi 510, 273 P.3d 1196 (2012) (post‑Miranda waiver can be predicated on pre‑Miranda agreement and thus be tainted)
State v. Luton, 83 Hawaiʻi 443, 927 P.2d 844 (1996) (post‑Miranda confession not tainted where different officers, intervening counsel, and sufficient time existed)
State v. Fukusaku, 85 Hawaiʻi 462, 946 P.2d 32 (1997) (fruit‑of‑the‑poisonous‑tree doctrine and independent source analysis)
State v. Poaipuni, 98 Hawaiʻi 387, 49 P.3d 353 (2002) (attenuation/independent source framework for excluding fruits of illegal acts)
Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (Miranda warnings alone do not necessarily attenuate the taint of prior illegality)