State v. Aquino-Martinez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
07-APR-2026
08:01 AM
Dkt. 55 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MIGUEL ALFREDO AQUINO-MARTINEZ, also known as
MIGUEL AQUINO-MARTINEZ, also known as
MIGUEL AQUINO, also known as
"Fernando from Badoo", Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 2CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.)

In this prosecution of Defendant-Appellant Miguel
Alfredo Aquino-Martinez (Aquino-Martinez) for first-degree
electronic enticement of a child, Aquino-Martinez appeals from
an order denying his motion to suppress evidence of text
messages that Aquino-Martinez exchanged with an undercover agent
posing online as a minor. We affirm.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Aquino-Martinez appeals from the "Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to
Suppress Evidence Stemming from Violation of Constitutional
Right to Privacy" (Suppression Order) filed on April 4, 2024, by
the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (Circuit Court).1
On appeal, Aquino-Martinez raises two points of error
(POEs), contending that the Circuit Court erroneously denied his
motion to suppress (motion) because (1) Aquino-Martinez's
"constitutionally protected right to privacy was violated by
police"; and (2) "the government violated Hawaii's Wiretap Act,"
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 803-42 (Wiretap Act),2 "by
engaging in electronic eavesdropping without a warrant."3
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve the
contentions as follows.
Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai‘i (State) charged
Aquino-Martinez in a May 2, 2023 Felony Information, with two
counts of Electronic Enticement of a Child in the First Degree
under HRS § 707-756(1),4 arising out of an electronic enticement

1 The Honorable Michelle L. Drewyer presided.
2 HRS § 803-42 (2014) generally prohibits the interception, access,
and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications in subsection (a).
Subsections (b)(1) through (b)(11) set forth various exceptions to the
general prohibition.

3 We have numbered Aquino-Martinez's POEs. See Hawaiʻi Rules of
Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4) (requiring numbered POEs).
4 A person is guilty of electronic enticement of a child in the
first degree under HRS § 707-756 (2014) if the person "[i]ntentionally or
knowingly communicates" while using an electronic device, "[w]ith another
person who represents that person to be under the age of eighteen years[,]"
"[w]ith the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of a felony[,]"
and "[i]ntentionally or knowingly travels to the agreed upon meeting place at
the agreed upon meeting time[.]"

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

operation during which undercover law enforcement officials
posed online as minors so they could identify individuals
pursuing sexual encounters with children.
On February 13, 2024, Aquino-Martinez filed a motion
to suppress evidence obtained through the sting operation,
claiming violations of Aquino-Martinez's constitutionally
protected privacy rights under article I, section 7 of the
Hawaiʻi Constitution.5
Following a March 1, 2024 hearing on the motion, on
April 4, 2024, the Circuit Court issued its Suppression Order,
which Aquino-Martinez timely appealed.
(1) Aquino-Martinez argues that because the sting
operation involved law enforcement "surreptitiously setting up
false, misleading profiles as a fake 'third party' in order to
induce persons online to engage in private 'sexting'
conversations," Aquino-Martinez's reasonable expectation of
privacy under article I, section 7 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution
was violated.6 Additionally, Aquino-Martinez argues that because
the content of his messages was sexually explicit and revealed
"intimate details" of his life, society would deem his privacy
expectation reasonable.
Aquino-Martinez relies on State v. Walton, 133 Hawai‘i
66, 96-97, 324 P.3d 876, 906-07 (2014), where the Hawaiʻi Supreme
Court held that disclosure of information to third parties does
not automatically place it beyond the scope of constitutional

5 This constitutional provision protects a person's right "against
unreasonable searches, seizures and invasions of privacy" and requires
probable cause to support a warrant for such searches and seizures. Haw.
Const. art. I, § 7.

6 Aquino-Martinez also cites article I, section 6 of the Hawai‘i
Constitution but does not argue its applicability to the facts of this case.
See HRAP Rule 28(b)(7).
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

privacy protections. The Walton court explained that where
information has been voluntarily disclosed to third parties, the
relevant inquiry as to whether that information is protected by
a constitutional right to privacy is "whether [the defendant]
h[as] a legitimate expectation that such information would not
be shared with others." Id. at 97, 324 P.3d at 907 (citations
omitted).
Aquino-Martinez's reliance on Walton is inapt because
Walton involved disclosure of private information to a third
party. This case involves a consensual participant recording,
which has been upheld in Hawaiʻi. See State v. Lee, 67 Haw. 307,
309, 686 P.2d 816, 817 (1984) ("[T]here is no reasonable
expectation of privacy in consensual recording[.]"). In Lee,
where an undercover officer posing as a patient made warrantless
recordings of visits to a defendant doctor suspected of illegal
drug promotion, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court held that because the
officer "consented to the recordings," "was a participant in the
conversations[,]" and was "free to testify in court" about the
conversations' contents, "the recordings [were] merely reliable
corroboration of the conversations" and should not be
suppressed. Id. at 310, 686 P.2d at 818.
Here, the undercover agent was a direct participant in
conversations with Aquino-Martinez, and the recordings served to
corroborate a conversation that she participated in, consented
to, and could freely testify about, for which there was no
reasonable expectation of privacy. See id. The evidence at
issue was recovered from law enforcement resources (e.g., a
screenshot of online chats taken from the device used by the
undercover agent) and was not taken from Aquino-Martinez's cell
phone. The Circuit Court correctly denied Aquino-Martinez's
motion to suppress by concluding that Aquino-Martinez's privacy
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

right under article I, section 7 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution was
not violated. See State v. Pickell, 154 Hawaiʻi 50, 53, 544 P.3d
1287, 1290 (2023) (reviewing motion to suppress ruling de novo).
(2) Aquino-Martinez argues that the Wiretap Act's
participant recording exception7 is inapplicable here because
"the conversation in this case was specifically between the
Defendant and the fictitious persona 'Kenna,'" and thus the
undercover agent "was not a party to the conversations as
defined under the statute" and "illegally interceded as a third
party without a warrant[.]" This argument is unpersuasive.
Under the plain language of HRS § 803-42(b)(4), "a
person acting under color of law" such as the undercover agent
in this case, is specifically excluded from the Wiretap Act.
The undercover agent's deception is not relevant to determine
whether the participant recording exception under HRS § 803-
42(b)(4) applies. The Circuit Court correctly concluded that
the exception applied. See id. (reviewing conclusions of law
under the right/wrong standard). The Circuit Court's denial of
the motion to suppress on this ground was correct. See id.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the April 4, 2024
"Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Order Denying
Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Stemming from Violation

7 HRS § 803-42(b)(4) (2014), the participant recording exception in
the Wiretap Act, permits a law enforcement officer who participates in the
communication to intercept that communication, as follows: "[i]t shall not be
unlawful under this part for a person acting under color of law to intercept
a wire, oral, or electronic communication, when the person is a party to the
communication[.]"
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

of Constitutional Right to Privacy," filed by the Circuit Court
of the Second Circuit.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, April 7, 2026.
On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Brandon M. Segal,
Chief Judge
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Renee Ishikawa Delizo,
Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
for Plaintiff-Appellee.
/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Associate Judge

6