State v. HolbronState v. Holbron
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Richardson
This аppeal by defendant-appellant Leroy Lawrence Holbron (hereinafter “appellant”) from his jury conviction of promoting a detrimental drug in the first degree under
Honolulu poliсe officer Mark Logan received an anonymous telephone message reporting thаt approximately forty kilos of marijuana were being grown at 5147 Keikilani Circle. In checking the address, he observed a house with a backyard enclosed by a seven-foot high wooden fence, whiсh prevented him from seeing into the backyard. However, from a vantage point on
Moving to a vantage point on a hill approximately 300 meters away across the streеt from the residence, he could see what appeared to be marijuana plants within the fеnced yard. The officer thereafter used, binoculars for a magnified view. During this surveillance, the officers observed appellant touch a marijuana plant on two occasions.
The following morning, Officer Logan obtained and executed a warrant to search the backyard and housе. The search resulted in the recovery of marijuana plants from the backyard and prepared marijuana from within the house.
A governmental intrusion into matters in which an individual had exhibited a “reasonаble expectation of privacy” is a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment. State v. Boynton, 58 Haw. 530, 535, 574 P.2d 1330, 1334 (1978); State v. Stachler, 58 Haw. 412, 416, 570 P.2d 1323, 1326 (1977).
In our past determinations of whether a reasonable expectation of privacy existed under the constitution, we have considered the nature of the place involved, the precautiоns taken by the defendant to insure his privacy and the position of the government officer. See State v. Kender, 60 Haw. 301, 588 P.2d 447 (1978); State v. Kaaheena, 59 Haw. 23, 575 P.2d 462 (1978); State v. Boynton, supra; State v. Stachler, supra.
Where an object observed by the police is in “open view,” 3 it “is not subjeсt to any reasonable expectation of privacy and the observation is not within the scоpe of the constitution.” State v. Kaaheena, supra at 29, 575 P.2d at 467; State v. Stachler, supra at 417-18, 570 P.2d at 1327.
In State v. Hook, 60 Haw. 197, 587 P.2d 1224 (1978), a police officer testified that, while in his parked automobile in thе public street, he observed and recognized the tops of marijuana plants growing in the rear оf the defendant’s stairway. This court, finding that the lack of concealment or isolation from view of thе plants negated any reasonable expectation of privacy on the part of thе defendant, found no fourth amendment violation with respect to these observations.
Similarly, in State v. Brighter, 60 Haw. 318, 589 P.2d 527 (1979), we held that whеre marijuana plants were visible from the defen dant’s open driveway under normal conditions, the dеfendant could not reasonably have harbored an expectation of privacy with resрect to observation of the plants from that vantage point.
As in Hook and Brighter, the marijuana plants in the instant case were visible to members of the public. Appellant could not reasonably have had an expectation of рrivacy with respect to observations of the plants from the tennis courts; thus, he cannot invoke thе constitutional protection against unreasonable searches.
Although the officer used binoculars to view the plants, its use did not render the evidence inadmissible; its use is one of the factors to be considered. State v. Ward, 62 Haw. 509, 617 P.2d 568 (1980); United States v. Kim, 415 F. Supp. 1252 (D. Hawaii 1976); People v. Amo, 90 Cal.App.3d 505, 153 Cal. Rptr. 624 (1979).
We have held that where the police use binoculars as an opticаl aid to view that which could not be seen without them, the observation constituted an unconstitutional
We conclude the police observation of the plants did not infringe upon appellant’s constitutional guarantee against unreasonablе search.
We find no merit to other issues raised. Hence, we affirm the conviction.
Notes
§712-1247 Promoting a detrimental drug in the first degree. (1) A person commits the offense of promoting a detrimental drug in the first degree if he knowingly:
(e) Possesses one or morе preparations, compounds, mixtures, or substances of an aggregate weight of two and two-tenths pounds or more, containing any marijuana.
Fourth amendment, United States Constitution, and art. I, § 7, Hawaii State Constitution.
In State v. Kaaheena, 59 Haw. 23, 28-29, 575 P.2d 462, 467 (1978), we explained “open view” as follows:
In the “open view” situation, however, the observation takes place from a non-intrusivе vantage point. The governmental agent is either on the outside looking outside or on the outside looking inside to that which is knowingly exposed to the public. See Moylan, The Plain View Doctrine: Unexpected Child of the Great “Searchlncident” Geography Battle, 26 Mercer L. Rev. 1047,1096,1097 (1975).