State v. Kupihea

Hawaii Supreme Court

State v. Kupihea

581 P.2d 765, 59 Haw. 386, 1978 Haw. LEXIS 199

CourtHawaii Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 28, 1978

Docket5979, 5980

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 581 P.2d 765 (State v. Kupihea) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Kupihea, 581 P.2d 765, 59 Haw. 386, 1978 Haw. LEXIS 199 (haw 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT BY

MENOR, J.

The defendants were convicted of a firearms violation under HRS § 134-6. The defendants appeal from the judgment and sentence of the trial court. At issue is whether the trial court should have suppressed handguns recovered by the police following a stop of the vehicle in which the defendants were riding. These handguns were seen and recovered from the floor of the automobile.

While making an investigative check on a known pimp at his residence at Hawaii Kai, at approximately 11:45 p.m., Officer Wheeler Brown, who was accompanied by Officer Marc Greenwell, noticed three men entering a green Mustang automobile which was parked in one of the apartment *387 building’s parking stalls. The officers testified that as the vehicle was backing out of the stall, they saw the defendants looking in their direction. The defendants (but not the driver) then appeared to assume a crouching position so that their heads disappeared from view. However, after the vehicle had completed its reverse movement and was moving forward, the defendants resumed their upright position. It was at that point that the officers decided to stop the automobile to investigate. Following the stop, Officer Brown saw the weapons with the aid of his flashlight and recovered them from the floor of the automobile.

Ernest Y. Yamane (Bicoy & Yamane, of counsel) for defendants-app ellants. Lydia Garcia, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for plaintiffappellee.

The seizure of the firearms was proper only if the initial stop was proper. State v. Ogata, 58 Haw. 514, 572 P.2d 1222 (1977). We hold that it was not. The police had no prior information linking the occupants of the car with the known pimp, pimping activities, or with any other criminal activity. The defendants’ crouching motion, without more, did not constitute a sufficient basis for the stop. Cf. Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968). An investigative stop of an automobile is justified only where the police can point to specific and articulable facts from which they can reasonably infer that criminal activity involving the defendants is possibly afoot. State v. Ogata, supra.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT BY

MENOR, J.

The defendants were convicted of a firearms violation under HRS § 134-6. The defendants appeal from the judgment and sentence of the trial court. At issue is whether the trial court should have suppressed handguns recovered by the police following a stop of the vehicle in which the defendants were riding. These handguns were seen and recovered from the floor of the automobile.

While making an investigative check on a known pimp at his residence at Hawaii Kai, at approximately 11:45 p.m., Officer Wheeler Brown, who was accompanied by Officer Marc Greenwell, noticed three men entering a green Mustang automobile which was parked in one of the apartment *387 building’s parking stalls. The officers testified that as the vehicle was backing out of the stall, they saw the defendants looking in their direction. The defendants (but not the driver) then appeared to assume a crouching position so that their heads disappeared from view. However, after the vehicle had completed its reverse movement and was moving forward, the defendants resumed their upright position. It was at that point that the officers decided to stop the automobile to investigate. Following the stop, Officer Brown saw the weapons with the aid of his flashlight and recovered them from the floor of the automobile.

Ernest Y. Yamane (Bicoy & Yamane, of counsel) for defendants-app ellants. Lydia Garcia, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for plaintiffappellee.

The seizure of the firearms was proper only if the initial stop was proper. State v. Ogata, 58 Haw. 514, 572 P.2d 1222 (1977). We hold that it was not. The police had no prior information linking the occupants of the car with the known pimp, pimping activities, or with any other criminal activity. The defendants’ crouching motion, without more, did not constitute a sufficient basis for the stop. Cf. Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968). An investigative stop of an automobile is justified only where the police can point to specific and articulable facts from which they can reasonably infer that criminal activity involving the defendants is possibly afoot. State v. Ogata, supra.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

581 P.2d 765, 59 Haw. 386, 1978 Haw. LEXIS 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kupihea-haw-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack