CourtListener 10848626

Texto completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
27-APR-2026
07:54 AM
Dkt. 39 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
LAWRENCE TURNO, Defendant-Appellant.

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

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

In this interlocutory appeal, Defendant-Appellant
Lawrence Turno (Turno) appeals from the following orders entered
on April 11, 2024, by the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit
(Second Circuit)1/: (1) the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law, Order Denying Motion to Suppress Evidence Stemming From
Illegal Interrogation Filed on December 10, 2024 (Order re
Interrogation); and (2) the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law, Order Denying Motion to Suppress Evidence Stemming from
Violation of Constitutional Right to Privacy Filed on January 23,
2024 (Order re Privacy).
In an April 19, 2023 Felony Information, Plaintiff-
Appellee State of Hawai#i (State) charged Turno with one count of
Commercial Sexual Exploitation of a Minor, in violation of Hawaii
Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712-1209.1. The charge arose out of a
Maui Police Department operation in which an undercover officer,

1/
The Honorable Kelsey T. Kawano presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Sergeant John Surina (Sgt. Surina), created an account and
profile on the escort/prostitution website skipthegames.com.
The profile featured photographs of a female adult with the
fictitious name "Scarlett" (who was actually another police
officer), offering various sexual services to consenting adults.
In a text message exchange between Turno and Sgt. Surina, posing
as "Scarlett," Turno agreed to pay $250 in exchange for sexual
intercourse. The texting continued, with "Scarlett" telling
Turno that she was 16 years old and asking him if he was "cool
wit that[.]" Turno responded, "Yes [I]'m cool wit that," and
agreed to meet "Scarlett" at the Safeway in Kihei. When Turno
arrived, he was arrested.
After he was charged, Turno filed two motions to
suppress evidence obtained through the undercover operation – a
December 10, 2023 Motion to Suppress Evidence Stemming From
Illegal Interrogation (Motion to Suppress re Interrogation) and a
January 23, 2024 Motion to Suppress Evidence Stemming from
Violation of Constitutional Right to Privacy (Motion to Suppress
re Privacy).
An evidentiary hearing on the two motions was held on
February 27 and March 19, 2024. The Circuit Court later entered
the Order re Interrogation and the Order re Privacy, denying both
motions, and granted Turno's motion for leave to file an
interlocutory appeal.
On appeal, Turno contends that the Circuit Court erred:
(1) in denying his Motion to Suppress re Interrogation where
"police engaged in sustained and coercive questioning after
probable cause to arrest [Turno] had been established"; (2) in
denying his Motion to Suppress re Privacy where "Turno's
constitutionally protected right to privacy was violated by
police"; and (3) in denying his Motion to Suppress re Privacy
where "the government violated Hawaii's Wiretap Act," HRS
§ 803-42 (Wiretap Act),2/ "by engaging in electronic eavesdropping
without a warrant." (Capitalization altered.)

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

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

After reviewing the record on appeal and the relevant
legal authorities, and giving due consideration to the issues
raised and the arguments advanced by the parties, we resolve
Turno's contentions as follows, and affirm.
(1) Turno acknowledges that the police had probable
cause to arrest him "for a petty misdemeanor prostitution charge"
when he agreed to pay $250 in exchange for sexual intercourse.
He argues, however, that after that, Sgt. Surina continued a
"sustained and coercive interrogation" without advising him of
his Miranda rights "in order to extract further incriminating
evidence and manipulate the existing petty misdemeanor charge
into a felony."
"Under the Hawai#i Constitution, absent Miranda
warnings and a valid waiver of them, statements obtained from a
person subjected to uncounseled custodial interrogation are
inadmissible in a subsequent criminal proceeding brought against
that person." State v. Spies, 157 Hawai#i 75, 98, 575 P.3d 708,
731 (2025) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)
(quoting State v. Hoffman, 155 Hawai#i 166, 172, 557 P.3d 895,
901 (2024)). A defendant objecting to the admissibility of, and
seeking to suppress, their statement "must establish that their
statement was the result of (1) 'interrogation' that occurred
while they were (2) 'in custody.'" Id. (quoting Hoffman, 155
Hawai#i at 172, 557 P.3d at 901).
In State v. James, 153 Hawai#i 503, 541 P.3d 1266
(2024), the supreme court ruled that the defendant was not "in
custody" for Miranda purposes, where "there was no 'initial stop
or detention' or other deprivation of freedom of action at the
time [the defendant] made the statements . . . regardless of
whether probable cause to arrest existed at the time [the
government agent] contacted [the defendant.]" Id. at 512, 541
P.3d at 1275. Here, there is no dispute that Turno had not been
stopped, detained or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action
when he sent the allegedly incriminating text messages to Sgt.
Surina. Turno argues, however, "that 'custody' can also occur
for purposes of Miranda if 'an objective assessment of the
totality of the circumstances reflects . . . that the person has

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

become impliedly accused of committing a crime because the
questions of the police have become sustained and coercive, such
that they are no longer reasonably designed briefly to confirm or
dispel their reasonable suspicion . . . .'" (Quoting James, 153
Hawai#i at 512, 541 P.3d 1275.)
The reasoning in James forecloses Turno's argument. He
was not deprived of his freedom of action in any way, and was
thus not in custody for Miranda purposes, when he made the
statements at issue. In any event, the Circuit Court did not err
in determining that no "sustained and coercive" interrogation
occurred here based on the totality of the circumstances.
(2) Turno contends that the police, by "surreptitiously
setting up false, misleading profiles as a fake 'third party' in
order to induce persons online to engage in private 'sexting'
conversations," violated his right to privacy under article I,
section 7 of the Hawai#i Constitution.3/ Turno argues that he had
a reasonable expectation of privacy in these "'sexting' chats,"
which were sexually explicit and revealed "intimate details" of
his life.
Turno relies on State v. Walton, 133 Hawai#i 66, 96-97,
324 P.3d 876, 906-07 (2014). There, the Hawai#i Supreme Court
held that disclosure of information to a third party does not
automatically place it beyond the scope of constitutional privacy
protections. Id. The court explained that where information has
been voluntarily disclosed to a third party, the relevant inquiry
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.
Turno's reliance on Walton is misplaced. Walton
involved disclosure of private information to a third party.
This case, in contrast, involves a consensual participant

3/
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.

Turno 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).

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

recording, which has been upheld in Hawai#i. 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, an undercover officer posing as a patient made
warrantless recordings of visits to a defendant doctor suspected
of illegal drug promotion. The Hawai#i 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.
Similarly, here, the undercover officer was a direct
participant in an extended conversation with Turno, and its
recording — in the form of a communications log generated by Sgt.
Surina from the cell phone he used in the investigation — served
to corroborate a conversation that the officer participated in,
consented to, and could freely testify about. Turno had no
reasonable expectation of privacy in this conversation in these
circumstances. See id. The Circuit Court correctly denied
Turno's Motion to Suppress re Privacy by concluding that his
privacy right under article I, section 7 of the Hawai#i
Constitution was not violated. See State v. Pickell, 154 Hawai#i
50, 53, 544 P.3d 1287, 1290 (2023) (reviewing motion to suppress
ruling de novo).
(3) Turno contends that the police, by "intercept[ing]'
[Turno's] 'electronic communications' from his cell phone without
a warrant, through intentional misrepresentation[,]" violated the
Wiretap Act. He argues that the Act's participant recording
exception4/ is inapplicable because "the conversation in this case
was specifically between [Turno] and the fictitious persona
'Scarlett'" and thus the undercover officer "was not a party to
the conversations as defined under the statute" and "illegally
interceded as a third party without a warrant[.]"
Under the plain language of HRS § 803-42(b)(4), "a

4/
HRS § 803-42(b)(4) (2014) states, in relevant part: "It 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 HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

person acting under color of law" such as Sgt. Surina does not
violate the Wiretap Act by intercepting an electronic
communication to which they are a party. The officer's deception
is not relevant in determining whether the participant recording
exception under HRS § 803-42(b)(4) applies. The Circuit Court
correctly concluded that the exception applied and correctly
denied the Motion to Suppress re Privacy on this ground.
For these reasons, we affirm the following orders
entered on April 11, 2024, by the Circuit Court of the Second
Circuit: (1) the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Order
Denying Motion to Suppress Evidence Stemming From Illegal
Interrogation Filed on December 10, 2024; and (2) the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law, Order Denying Motion to Suppress
Evidence Stemming from Violation of Constitutional Right to
Privacy Filed on January 23, 2024.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 27, 2026.

On the briefs:
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Brandon M. Segal Presiding Judge
(Segal Law - A Hawaii Law
Corporation)
for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge
Richard B. Rost,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
County of Maui, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
for Plaintiff-Appellee. Associate Judge

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
27-APR-2026
07:54 AM
Dkt. 39 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

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