State v. Saffery

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
17-MAY-2024
08:13 AM
Dkt. 52 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SHAYE KAHEALANI PACHECO SAFFERY, also known as
SHAYE K. PACHECO SAFFERY, Defendant-Appellee

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)

Plaintiff-Appellant State of Hawaiʻi (State) appeals

from the "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order

Granting Motion to Suppress" (Suppression Order), entered by the

Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (circuit court)1 on July 5,

1
The Honorable Kelsey T. Kawano presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

2023, and from the "Order Dismissing Case Without Prejudice"

(Dismissal Order), entered by the circuit court on July 7, 2023.

Defendant-Appellee Shaye Kahealani Pacheco Saffery

(Pacheco Saffery) was indicted in February 2023 on the following

counts: (1) Attempted Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the First

Degree, in violation of Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 705-500

(2014) and 712-1241(1)(b)(ii)(A) (Supp. 2016); (2) Promoting a

Dangerous Drug in the Second Degree, in violation of HRS § 712-

1242(1)(b)(i) (Supp. 2016); (3) Prohibited Acts Related to Drug

Paraphernalia, in violation of HRS § 329-43.5(a) (2022); and (4)

Promoting a Detrimental Drug in the Third Degree, in violation

of HRS § 712-1249(1) (2014).

In May 2023, Pacheco Saffery filed a Motion to

Suppress Evidence (Motion to Suppress), alleging the illegal

seizure of her vehicle and moving for the suppression of all

evidence resulting from the illegal seizure. The evidence that

Pacheco Saffery sought to suppress included: (1) "[a]ll physical

evidence seized from [Pacheco Saffery's] person or vehicle as a

result of the unlawful detention/search/seizure"; (2) "[a]ll

observations made by law enforcement as a result of the unlawful

detention/search/seizure, including but not limited to any

observations of the appearance of [Pacheco Saffery] or that of

her vehicle, the contents therein, and subsequent searches and

chemical test results"; and (3) "[a]ll statements made by

[Pacheco Saffery] after the unlawful detention/search/seizure."
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The State opposed the Motion, contending that Pacheco Saffery

was lawfully arrested, and that the seizure of her vehicle prior

to issuance of a warrant was lawful due to exigent

circumstances.

Following a hearing in June 2023, the circuit court

granted the Motion to Suppress. The circuit court subsequently

dismissed the case without prejudice in July 2023.

The State appealed. 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 State's point of error as follows.

The State specifically contends on appeal that the

circuit court erred by granting Pacheco Saffery's Motion to

Suppress because "sufficient evidence of exigent circumstances

existed in the record to support the warrantless seizure" of the

vehicle. The State specifically challenges conclusions of law

(COL) 5-7 of the Suppression Order. These COL provide,

5. Here, there were no specific grounds articulated to
justify a finding of exigent circumstances. The vehicle
was locked. Officer Sugiyama had the key. The two
passengers had left the area on foot. There were four
officers available. A search warrant could be obtained in
under two hours.

6. In the absence of exigent circumstances, a warrant
was required to seize the vehicle. Because the warrant was
not obtained until later, all evidence obtained as a direct
or indirect result of the initial seizure must be
suppressed. Therefore, all evidence found within the
vehicle must be suppressed.

7. The defendant's incriminating statement when
confronted with the evidence found in her vehicle must also
be suppressed. "[T]he 'fruit of the poisonous tree'
doctrine 'prohibits the use of evidence at trial which
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

comes to light as a result of the exploitation of a
previous illegal act of the police.'" State v. Fukusaku,
85 Hawaiʻi 462, 946 P.2d 32 (1997), quoting State v.
Medeiros, 4 Haw.App. 248, 251 n.4, 665 P.2d 181, 184 n.4
(1983). "[A] waiver of one's constitutional rights or a
confession, even if uncoerced and intelligently given, will
be inadmissible if induced by a prior illegality."
State v. Lopez, 78 Hawaiʻi 443, 453, 896 P.2d 889, 909
(1995). Inculpatory statements made in response to
interrogation regarding evidence which resulted from an
illegal search or seizure is the fruit of the poisonous
tree and must be suppressed. State v. Poaipuni, 98 Haw.
387, 394, 49 P.3d 353, 360 [(2002)]. Therefore, all
evidence obtained subsequent to the warrantless seizure
must be suppressed.

(Internal citations cleaned up).

A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is

reviewable de novo, under the right/wrong standard. State v.

James, 153 Hawaiʻi 503, 510, 541 P.3d 1266, 1273 (2024) (citing

State v. Hewitt, 153 Hawaiʻi 33, 40, 526 P.3d 558, 565 (2023)).

To the extent that the circuit court's COL 5, 6, and 7 present

mixed questions of law and fact, they are reviewed for clear

error. State v. Rapozo, 123 Hawaiʻi 329, 336, 235 P.3d 325, 332

(2010) ("[A] conclusion of law that presents mixed questions of

fact and law is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard

because the court's conclusions are dependent upon the facts and

circumstances of each individual case.") (citation omitted).

It is undisputed that the police seized Pacheco

Saffery's vehicle prior to the issuance of a search warrant.

"It is well established that warrantless searches and seizures

of items within a constitutionally protected area are

'presumptively unreasonable unless there is both probable cause

and a legally recognized exception to the warrant requirement.'"
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

State v. Phillips, 138 Hawaiʻi 321, 336, 382 P.3d 133, 148 (2016)

(quoting State v. Bonnell, 75 Haw. 124, 137, 856 P.2d 1265, 1273

(1993)). "An automobile search without a warrant . . . would

not be constitutionally proscribed where the search is conducted

as an incident to a proper arrest, or, assuming the existence of

probable cause, where exigent circumstances are present."

State v. Elliott, 61 Haw. 492, 494-95, 605 P.2d 930, 932 (1980)

(internal citations omitted). At issue is whether exigent

circumstances justified the warrantless seizure that led to the

search.

Elliott instructs that the term "exigent

circumstances,"

is incapable of precise definition, and [] each case must
be decided on its own facts. At the very least, however,
there must be a showing that at the time of the warrantless
search and seizure there was probable cause to search; and
that the police had reason to believe that because of the
car's mobility or exposure, there was a foreseeable risk
that it might be moved or that the evidence which it
contained might be removed or destroyed before a warrant
could be obtained.

Id. at 496, 605 P.2d at 933 (internal citations omitted).

Officer Sugiyama, the officer who authorized the

seizure and search of Pacheco Saffery's vehicle, was the sole

witness that testified at the hearing on the Motion to Suppress.

Officer Sugiyama testified that, in addition to himself, there

were three other officers assisting in Pacheco Saffery's arrest.

Officer Sugiyama further testified that he did not mention, in

his report, the two women who had approached the vehicle as it

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

was being secured. When questioned about this omission, Officer

Sugiyama stated, "I just felt –- it was really brief, and I just

didn't put it in my report." Officer Sugiyama further testified

that, to secure the vehicle, "[he] obtained [Pacheco Saffery's]

vehicle keys, and the vehicle just remained as it was." At

which time, "[he] stood by waiting for the tow."

With regard to the length of time it took to obtain

the search warrant, the record reflects,

Q [by defense counsel]. So on the night of –- of
this incident, you had –- you had a K-9 search at 2009,
correct, which is 8:09 p.m.?

A [by Officer Sugiyama]. Correct.

. . . .

Q. And by 2159 [9:59 p.m.], you already had the
warrant in hand, correct?

A. Correct.

On this record, we conclude that COL 5 and 6 were not

clearly erroneous. We further conclude that the circuit court

did not err, in its COL 7, in suppressing the "incriminating"

statement that Pacheco Saffery made to Officer Sugiyama that

arose out of the unlawful seizure of the vehicle. State v.

Fukusaku, 85 Hawaiʻi 462, 475, 946 P.2d 32, 45 (1997) ("As for

the suppression of derivative evidence, the fruit of the

poisonous tree doctrine prohibits the use of evidence at trial

which comes to light as a result of the exploitation of a

previous illegal act of the police.") (cleaned up). COL 5, 6,

and 7 are thus supported by the circuit court's findings and the

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

record evidence. Given the above, the circuit court did not err

in dismissing this case without prejudice.

The circuit court's July 5, 2023 Suppression Order,

and July 7, 2023 Dismissal Order are affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, May 17, 2024.

On the briefs:
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Gerald K. Enriques, Presiding Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
County of Maui, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
for Plaintiff-Appellant. Associate Judge

Seth Patek, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Deputy Public Defender, Associate Judge
for Defendant-Appellee.

7