IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI. ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
|
|
- Silvia May
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC NOV :41 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. YONG SHIK WON, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. SCWC CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP ; CASE NO. 1DTA ) NOVEMBER 25, 2015 CONCURRING OPINION BY WILSON, J. I join the majority opinion s conclusion that the search in the instant case violated article I, section 7 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution. Our decision does not, however, address the constitutionality of the statute, HRS 291E-68, which criminalizes a licensed driver whenever he or she exercises the
2 constitutional right to withhold consent to a search of his or her breath, blood, or urine. I write separately to express my view that, on its face, the statute constitutes an unconstitutional abridgement of the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under article I, section 7 of the Hawai i Constitution and the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution. A signature aspect of individual freedom guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions is the protection from unreasonable searches and seizures enjoyed by every citizen. See U.S. Const. amend. IV; Haw. Const. art. I, 7; Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 27 (1949) ( The security of one s privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment is basic to a free society. ), overruled on other grounds by Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961); Territory v. Ho Me, 26 Haw. 331, 335 (Haw. Terr. 1922) (noting that fourth and fifth amendment rights are indispensable to the full enjoyment of personal security, personal liberty and private property ). Under article I, section 7 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution, a search without a warrant is per se unreasonable, saving a specifically established and well-delineated exception[]. State v. Ganal, 81 Hawaiʻi 358, 368, 917 P.2d 370, 2
3 380 (1996). Constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures understandably apply to the search of the body, including its blood, breath, and urine. See Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552, 1558 (2013); Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs. Ass n, 489 U.S. 602, (1989). Indeed, the purpose of the warrant requirement is to protect human dignity from unreasonable intrusion by the government. See, e.g., McNeely, 133 S. Ct. at 1558 (describing a compelled blood test as an invasion of bodily integrity implicat[ing] an individual s most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted)). Recently, under the guise of protecting the public from intoxicated drivers, the constitutional rights of licensed drivers to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures have been eroded by laws that make criminal the exercise of those rights. By criminalizing an individual s decision to require a warrant before being subjected to a breath or blood alcohol search, such laws expose to prison those who obtain a driver s license and exercise the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Some courts have embraced this criminalization of the exercise of fourth amendment rights. See, e.g., State v. Brooks, 838 N.W.2d 563, (Minn. 2013); 3
4 State v. Birchfield, 858 N.W.2d 302, (N.D. 2015); People v. Harris, 170 Cal. Rptr. 3d 729, (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). Notwithstanding recent precedent endorsing the implied surrender of the warrant requirement, the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution may still stand as a guarantee of Won s right to request a warrant before his privacy interest in his breath was subjected to a governmental search. The United States Supreme Court has not directly addressed this issue. Nonetheless, under the Hawaiʻi Constitution, Won did not impliedly surrender that right by joining the vast number of Hawaiʻi citizens who obtain a driver s license. In Hawaiʻi, the privacy interest due a citizen in breath, blood, or urine is protected by the warrant requirement of article I, section 7 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution. Hawaiʻi is not a state whose citizens fall prey to the proposition that, by obtaining a driver s license, they impliedly surrender their right to receive the protection of a warrant before enduring a blood or breath search. We have a rightfully proud tradition under our constitution of providing greater protections to our citizens than those afforded under the United States Constitution. See, e.g., State v. Mundon, 121 Hawaiʻi 339, 365, 219 P.3d 1126, 1152 (2009) ( [W]e are free to give broader protection under the 4
5 Hawaiʻi Constitution than that given by the federal [C]onstitution. (second alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation mark omitted)); State v. Heapy, 113 Hawaiʻi 283, 298, 151 P.3d 764, 779 (2007) (noting that article I, section 7 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution provides a more extensive right of privacy[] than the fourth amendment (citation omitted) (internal quotation mark omitted)); State v. Rogan, 91 Hawaiʻi 405, 423, 984 P.2d 1231, 1249 (1999) (stating that greater protections are provided by the double jeopardy clause of the Hawaiʻi Constitution than its federal counterpart); State v. Hoey, 77 Hawaiʻi 17, 36, 881 P.2d 504, 523 (1994) ( On the issue before us, we choose to afford our citizens broader protection under article I, section 10 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution than that recognized by the [United States Supreme Court] under the United States Constitution.... ). Here, because there was no voluntary consent and no other exception to the warrant requirement, Won s breath test, gained pursuant to HRS 291E-68, was in violation of article I, section 7 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution. Won was coerced to give his consent to the search of his breath by the threat of prosecution if he refused to give his consent. The constitutional infirmity of HRS 291E-68 is more evident in its 5
6 prosecution of a citizen who, unlike Won, does not consent and instead exercises his or her constitutionally endowed right to the protection of a warrant before the search of his or her blood, breath, or urine. In such a situation, an individual wholly innocent of driving under the influence may be culpable as a criminal misdemeanant merely by refusing to consent to a BAC test without a warrant. The legislature recognized the problematic nature of the statute prior to its enactment. During discussions regarding the bill containing the criminal penalty for refusal, the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee stated: Criminalizing the refusal to submit to a test infringes upon important personal rights that in the past, this Legislature has been mindful of protecting House Journal, at 838 (statement of Rep. Karamatsu). He further noted that the law would result[] in situations where the arrestee is convicted of refusal when the test result would have indicated that the arrestee was not guilty of [OVUII]. Id. This sentiment was memorialized in a House Standing Committee Report, which warned: Your Committee understands that to criminalize refusal to submit to a breath, blood, or urine test infringes upon important personal rights that in the past the Legislature has protected. Your Committee is mindful that such a law can result in a situation where the arrestee is convicted of refusal when the test results would have indicated that the arrestee was not guilty of intoxicated driving. 6
7 H. Stand. Comm. Rep. No , in 2010 House Journal, at For the reasons discussed above, and because there is no instance in which the criminalization of the right to refuse a BAC test pursuant to the statutory scheme at issue would be rendered constitutionally permissible, HRS 291E-68 is unconstitutional on its face. See, e.g., State v. Maugaotega, 115 Hawaiʻi 432, , 168 P.3d 562, (2007) (holding sentencing statute in all of its manifestations was unconstitutional on its face ); see also Camara v. Mun. Court of City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523, 540 (1967) (holding appellant had a constitutional right to insist that the [health] inspectors obtain a warrant to search and that appellant may not constitutionally be convicted for refusing to consent to the inspection ). The fact that, notwithstanding the statute, a warrant may be obtained or an exigent circumstance might be present, does not change the intended consequence of this statute, which is to punish every exercise of the right to refuse a warrantless search by a driver s-licensed citizen whose blood, breath, or urine the government seeks to search. In assessing the facial validity of a statute authorizing warrantless searches the United States Supreme Court has noted that the proper focus of the constitutional inquiry is searches that the law actually authorizes, not those 7
8 for which it is irrelevant. City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 135 S. Ct. 2443, 2451 (2015). Thus, in declaring facially unconstitutional a Los Angeles Municipal Code provision requiring that hotels make guest records available for police inspection, the United States Supreme Court rejected the argument that the statute was saved by the fact a valid search could occur pursuant to a warrant or an exigent circumstance: If exigency or a warrant justifies an officer s search, the subject of the search must permit it to proceed irrespective of whether it is authorized by statute. Statutes authorizing warrantless searches also do no work where the subject of a search has consented. Accordingly, the constitutional applications that petitioner claims prevent facial relief here are irrelevant to our analysis because they do not involve actual applications of the statute. Id. On this basis, the Court rejected the petitioner s contention that the facial challenge to the statute must fail because such searches will never be unconstitutional in all applications. Id. at In Patel, the Court also rejected the United States argument that a statute authorizing warrantless searches may still have independent force if it imposes a penalty for failing to cooperate in a search conducted under a warrant or in an exigency. Id. at 2451 n.1. In this regard, the Court noted that the availability of prosecution for failure to consent to warrantless searches authorized by the constitution does not save the statute from its constitutional infirmity: 8
9 Id. This argument gets things backwards. An otherwise facially unconstitutional statute cannot be saved from invalidation based solely on the existence of a penalty provision that applies when searches are not actually authorized by the statute. This argument is especially unconvincing where, as here, an independent obstruction of justice statute imposes a penalty for willfully, resist[ing], delay[ing], or obstruct[ing] any public officer... in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office of employment. Cal. Penal Code Ann. 148(a)(1) (West 2014). Similarly, in the instant case, the effect of HRS 291E-68 is to improperly authorize warrantless searches where there is no exception to the warrant requirement. Of course, if a warrant is obtained prior to an individual s submission to a BAC test or if an exigency is present, providing a valid exception to the warrant requirement, the individual has no constitutional right to refuse to submit to the test. In such cases, as noted by the Court in Patel, id., prosecution for obstruction of public administration or another crime related to the obstruction of justice may be appropriate. Cf. State v. Line, 121 Hawai i 74, 82, 214 P.3d 613, 621 (2009) (explaining that purposeful obstruction of a law enforcement officer executing a search warrant is a crime even if the warrant is defective and the search consequently unlawful (emphasis omitted) (citation omitted)). These cases would fall outside of the scope of HRS 291E-68, which specifically authorizes criminal penalties for individuals who refuse to submit to 9
10 warrantless BAC tests where there is no exigency or other exception to the warrant requirement at issue. 1 Moreover, the ICA and the dissent s proposition that the threat to public safety from intoxicated drivers renders reasonable the criminalization of the exercise of a fourth amendment right is anathema to the purpose of the fourth amendment. It is the very purpose of the fourth amendment and article I, section 7 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution to elevate the individual liberties of citizens beyond calibration based on the degree of threat to public safety posed by a particular crime. Constitutional liberties do not depend on the seriousness of the crime involved. See Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67, 86 (2001) (explaining that although urine tests provide evidence of drug abuse, which is a serious problem, the gravity of the threat alone cannot be dispositive of questions concerning what means law enforcement officers may employ to pursue a given purpose (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. United States Dist. Court, It is clear that the purpose of HRS 291E-68 and other criminal refusal statutes is to procure an individual s purported consent to a BAC test. See State v. Won, 134 Hawaiʻi 59, 65, 332 P.3d 661, 667 (App. 2014) ( Instead of authorizing the police to force persons arrested in the typical OVUII case to undergo chemical testing based on their implied consent, the Hawaiʻi Legislature has chosen to use the threat of administrative and criminal sanctions to encourage arrestees to submit to testing. ). In cases where a police officer obtains a warrant, or where there is an exigency, a police officer need not obtain an individual s consent to conduct a BAC test. 10
11 U.S. 297, (1972) (noting that the warrant clause of the fourth amendment is not an inconvenience to be somehow weighed against the claims of police efficiency and that [i]t is, or should be, an important working part of our machinery of government, operating as a matter of course ). An individual does not lose his or her liberties because he or she is charged with a crime. To the contrary, it is beyond cavil that citizens are endowed with full constitutional protection particularly where the government chooses to prosecute for the most serious of crimes. No matter the inducement of contemporary statistics, the constitution stands as a bulwark against the insidious balancing of individual liberty in proportion to the seriousness of the crime for which a citizen stands accused. To deem reasonable a law so manifestly antithetical to the continued vitality of the fourth amendment and article I, section 7 is to pave the analytical way for future statutes that permit government to prosecute citizens who insist on a warrant before being subjected to a search or seizure. Indeed, the balancing approach adopted by the ICA and the dissent affords the legislature the option to enhance the penalty for refusing to consent to a search perhaps to a felony if convincing statistics establish that the present sanction is not 11
12 sufficiently reducing the number of intoxicated drivers. Such an approach runs afoul of the fourth amendment and article I, section 7 of our constitution. There are exigencies independent of the seriousness of a crime justifying the government s warrantless search of the realm of privacy enjoyed by citizens in their body as well as their homes. See, e.g., State v. Clark, 65 Haw. 488, 494, 654 P.2d 355, 360 (1982) (recognizing that an exigency exists when there is an immediate danger to life or of serious injury or an immediate threatened removal or destruction of evidence ); State v. Dorson, 62 Haw. 377, 384, 615 P.2d 740, 746 (1980) (same). However, the nature of a crime, no matter how serious, does not expose citizens to a government unfettered by the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. HRS 291E-68 elevates the danger of intoxicated driving to an importance beyond the signature significance of the warrant requirement of the United States and Hawai i constitutions. The premise that the danger of intoxicated driving transcends the protection of the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 7 of the Hawai i Constitution is per se 12
13 unreasonable and renders HRS 291E-68 unconstitutional on its face. /s/ Michael D. Wilson Associate Justice 13
NO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
NO. CAAP-12 12-0000858 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0000858 12-AUG-2013 02:40 PM STATE OF HAWAI I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationBIRCHFIELD V. NORTH DAKOTA: WARRANTLESS BREATH TESTS AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
BIRCHFIELD V. NORTH DAKOTA: WARRANTLESS BREATH TESTS AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT SARA JANE SCHLAFSTEIN INTRODUCTION In Birchfield v. North Dakota, 1 the United States Supreme Court addressed privacy concerns
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED WILLIAM WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Case No.
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CR. VINCENT REED MCCAULEY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed June 28, 2016. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-15-00629-CR VINCENT REED MCCAULEY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the
More informationsample obtained from the defendant on the basis that any consent given by the
r STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC, SS. SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL ACTION Docket No. CR-16-222 STATE OF MAINE v. ORDER LYANNE LEMEUNIER-FITZGERALD, Defendant Before the court is defendant's motion to suppress evidence
More informationImplied Consent Testing & the Fourth Amendment
Implied Consent Testing & the Fourth Amendment Shea Denning School of Government November 2015 What exactly is an implied consent offense anyway? A person charged with such an offense may be required (pursuant
More informationOPINION ON REHEARING IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 111,698. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, DAVID LEE RYCE, Appellee.
OPINION ON REHEARING IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 111,698 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. DAVID LEE RYCE, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1025 is facially unconstitutional.
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Anthony Marchese, : Appellant : : v. : No. 1996 C.D. 2016 : Submitted: June 30, 2017 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Department of Transportation, : Bureau of
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I. ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, vs.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-28901 31-DEC-2013 09:48 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, vs. ROBERT J.
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 114,233 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. CITY OF HUTCHINSON, Appellee, TYSON SPEARS, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 114,233 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS CITY OF HUTCHINSON, Appellee, v. TYSON SPEARS, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Reno District Court; TRISH
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,956 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. KIMBERLY WHITE, Appellant,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,956 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS KIMBERLY WHITE, Appellant, v. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Barton District
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 14-1468 In the Supreme Court of the United States DANNY BIRCHFIELD, v. Petitioner, NORTH DAKOTA, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Dakota PETITIONER S REPLY
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,990 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, CODY ALAN BARTA, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,990 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. CODY ALAN BARTA, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Ellsworth District
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : CR-1890-2015 v. : : GARY STANLEY HELMINIAK, : PRETRIAL MOTION Defendant : OPINION AND ORDER
More informationNo In The. Supreme Court of the United States. Joseph Wayne Hexom, State of Minnesota, On Petition for A Writ of Certiorari
No. 15-1052 In The Supreme Court of the United States Joseph Wayne Hexom, Petitioner, v. State of Minnesota, Respondent. On Petition for A Writ of Certiorari BRIEF IN OPPOSITION JENNIFER M. SPALDING Counsel
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I. ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-15-0000402 16-MAY-2018 09:41 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RACHEL VIAMOANA UI, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I. ---o0o--
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I ---o0o-- STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BERNARD NICELOTI-VELAZQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant NO. CAAP-15-0000373 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT
More informationIn The Supreme Court of Wisconsin
No. 14AP1870 In The Supreme Court of Wisconsin STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. DAVID W. HOWES, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. On Appeal from the Dane County Circuit Court, The Honorable John W. Markson,
More informationAppeal from the Order Entered October 7, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-11-CR
2017 PA Super 326 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BRIAN WAYNE CARPER, Appellee No. 1715 WDA 2016 Appeal from the Order Entered October 7, 2016 In the Court
More informationARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-15-673 MATTHEW AARON BURR APPELLANT V. Opinion Delivered March 30, 2016 APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CR-2014-1499-1] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I. ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-12-0000858 25-NOV-2015 08:45 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. YONG SHIK WON, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I. ---o0o--
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I ---o0o-- STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. YONG SHIK WON, Defendant-Appellant. NO. CAAP-12-0000858 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF
More information1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: October 5, NO. S-1-SC STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: October 5, 2017 4 NO. S-1-SC-36197 5 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 6 Plaintiff-Petitioner, 7 v. 8 LARESSA VARGAS, 9 Defendant-Respondent.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2017-NMSC-029 Filing Date: October 5, 2017 Docket No. S-1-SC-36197 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Plaintiff-Petitioner, LARESSA VARGAS, Defendant-Respondent.
More informationSCWC IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I. vs. STANLEY S.L. KONG, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-11-0000393 13-JUN-2013 02:57 PM SCWC-11-0000393 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. STANLEY S.L. KONG,
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs December 9, 2015 Remanded by the Supreme Court November 22, 2016
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs December 9, 2015 Remanded by the Supreme Court November 22, 2016 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHRISTOPHER WILSON Interlocutory Appeal
More informationTHE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE,
[Cite as State v. Hoover, 123 Ohio St.3d 418, 2009-Ohio-4993.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE, v. HOOVER, APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Hoover, 123 Ohio St.3d 418, 2009-Ohio-4993.]
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 112,731 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, DARWIN FERGUSON, Appellee.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 112,731 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. DARWIN FERGUSON, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Ellsworth District Court;
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I. ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-12-0001121 15-MAY-2017 08:15 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RAYMOND S. DAVIS, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
More information2017 PA Super 217 OPINION BY MOULTON, J.: FILED JULY 11, The Commonwealth appeals from the October 19, 2016 order entered
2017 PA Super 217 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOHN LAMONTE ENNELS Appellee No. 1895 MDA 2016 Appeal from the Suppression Order October 19, 2016 In the
More information2018 VT 100. No On Appeal from v. Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Criminal Division. Walker P. Edelman June Term, 2018
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions
More informationA (800) (800)
No. 14-1507 In the Supreme Court of the United States STEVE MICHAEL BEYLUND, v. GRANT LEVI, DIRECTOR, NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Petitioner, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,597 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, JOSHUA PAUL JONES, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,597 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JOSHUA PAUL JONES, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Ford District Court;
More informationSTATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A vs. Filed: October 12, 2016 Office of Appellate Courts Ryan Mark Thompson,
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A15-0076 Court of Appeals State of Minnesota, Gildea, C.J. Took no part, Chutich, McKeig, JJ. Appellant, vs. Filed: October 12, 2016 Office of Appellate Courts Ryan
More informationAN ALCOHOL MINDSET IN A DRUG-CRAZED WORLD: A REVIEW OF BIRCHFIELD V. NORTH DAKOTA
AN ALCOHOL MINDSET IN A DRUG-CRAZED WORLD: A REVIEW OF BIRCHFIELD V. NORTH DAKOTA DEVON BEENY * INTRODUCTION In Birchfield v. North Dakota, 1 the Supreme Court notes that on average, one person in the
More information[J ] [MO: Wecht, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT : : : : : : : : : : : : DISSENTING OPINION
[J-94-2016] [MO Wecht, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant v. DARRELL MYERS, Appellee No. 7 EAP 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of Superior Court
More informationProject No Final VTRC 06-R7 October Period Covered: Contract No.
Standard Title Page - Report on State Project Report No. Report Date No. Pages Type Report: Project No. 76462 Final VTRC 06-R7 October 2005 31 Period Covered: Contract No. Title: The Potential Impact and
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 14-1470 In the Supreme Court of the United States WILLIAM ROBERT BERNARD, JR., v. Petitioner, STATE OF MINNESOTA, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to The Supreme Court of Minnesota REPLY BRIEF FOR
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-14-00153-CR The State of Texas, Appellant v. Marguerite Foreman, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO.
More informationFollow this and additional works at: Part of the Constitutional Law Commons
Touro Law Review Volume 16 Number 2 Article 41 2000 Search and Seizure Susan Clark Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 118,013 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 118,013 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. BROCK JORDAN WILLIAMS, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION 2018. Affirmed. Appeal from
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 112,242 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 112,242 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. SEAN ALLEN STECKLINE, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Ellis District
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I. ---o0o--- ERWIN E. FAGARAGAN, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant, vs. SCWC
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-11-0000592 14-FEB-2014 02:30 PM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ---o0o--- ERWIN E. FAGARAGAN, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant, vs. STATE OF HAWAI I,
More informationNO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NO. CAAP-11-0000347 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JULIE PHOMPHITHACK, Defendant-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I. ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-13-0000030 15-AUG-2017 08:09 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANTHONY R. VILLENA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 115,025 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. CITY OF LAWRENCE, Appellee, COLIN ROYAL COMEAU, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 115,025 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS CITY OF LAWRENCE, Appellee, v. COLIN ROYAL COMEAU, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Douglas
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : CR-1479-2014 : v. : : TIMOTHY J. MILLER, JR, : Defendant : PCRA OPINION AND ORDER On February 15, 2017, PCRA
More informationIMPLIED CONSENT LAW UPDATE. Cory Monnens, Assistant Attorney General
IMPLIED CONSENT LAW UPDATE Cory Monnens, Assistant Attorney General What Will Be Covered Constitutional Caselaw Developments Uncertainty of Measurement in Breath Tests 171.19 Petitions Time for Questions
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I. ---ooo--- ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF DISCOVERY BAY, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-11-0000151 13-NOV-2014 07:51 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ---ooo--- ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF DISCOVERY BAY, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationNo In the Supreme Court of the United States TORREY DALE GRADY, Petitioner, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent.
No. 14-593 In the Supreme Court of the United States TORREY DALE GRADY, Petitioner, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of North Carolina
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I. ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-11-0000758 06-FEB-2014 09:26 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MICHAEL W. BASHAM, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 5/16/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, 2d Crim. No. B283857 (Super. Ct. No.
More informationDePaul Law Review. DePaul College of Law. Volume 10 Issue 1 Fall-Winter Article 16
DePaul Law Review Volume 10 Issue 1 Fall-Winter 1960 Article 16 Constitutional Law - Statute Authorizing Search without Warrant Upheld by Reason of Equal Division of Supreme Court - Ohio ex rel. Eaton
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 6, 2004 v No. 245608 Livingston Circuit Court JOEL ADAM KABANUK, LC No. 02-019027-AV Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. Opinion Number: Filing Date: July 19, Docket No. 32,589 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: July 19, 2012 Docket No. 32,589 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Plaintiff-Petitioner, JOSE ALFREDO ORDUNEZ, Defendant-Respondent. ORIGINAL
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No. 17-C-154 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN WINNEBAGO APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, INC. et al, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 17-C-154 CITY OF OSHKOSH et al, Defendants. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
More informationIN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I ---o0o-- STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. DREW CLEMENTE, Defendant-Appellee. CAAP-11-0000027 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
More informationAPPRENDI v. NEW JERSEY 120 S. CT (2000)
Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice Volume 7 Issue 1 Article 10 Spring 4-1-2001 APPRENDI v. NEW JERSEY 120 S. CT. 2348 (2000) Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/crsj
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,880 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, HAU T. TRAN, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,880 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. HAU T. TRAN, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Sedgwick District
More informationSTATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A15-1795 In re the Application for an Administrative Search Warrant, City of Golden Valley, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Jason Wiebesick, Respondent, Jacki Wiebesick,
More informationIssue presented: application of statute regarding warrantless blood draws. November 2014
November 2014 Texas Law Enforcement Handbook Monthly Update is published monthly. Copyright 2014. P.O. Box 1261, Euless, TX 76039. No claim is made regarding the accuracy of official government works or
More informationCalifornia Supreme Court Creates a New Exception to the Search Warrant Requirement: People v. Sirhan
SMU Law Review Volume 27 1973 California Supreme Court Creates a New Exception to the Search Warrant Requirement: People v. Sirhan James N. Cowden Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr
More information2018 VT 72. Nos & v. On Appeal from Superior Court, Rutland Unit, State of Vermont November Term, 2017 v. Albert Lee Lape, Jr.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs December 9, 2015
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs December 9, 2015 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHRISTOPHER WILSON Interlocutory Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No.
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 114,037 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. CITY OF DODGE CITY, Appellee, SHAUN BARRETT, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 114,037 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS CITY OF DODGE CITY, Appellee, v. SHAUN BARRETT, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Ford District
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI. ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-16-0000558 18-JAN-2018 08:01 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BENJAMIN EDUWENSUYI,
More informationMapp v. ohio (1961) rights of the accused. directions
Mapp v. ohio (1961) directions Read the Case Background and the Key Question. Then analyze Documents A-J. Finally, answer the Key Question in a well-organized essay that incorporates your interpretations
More informationTwenty-First Century Fingerprinting: Supreme Court in King to Determine Privacy Interest in Arrestee DNA
Twenty-First Century Fingerprinting: Supreme Court in King to Determine Privacy Interest in Arrestee DNA Described by Justice Alito as perhaps the most important criminal procedure case that this Court
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 7, 2014 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 7, 2014 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MELVIN BROWN Interlocutory Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 13-00735 W. Mark Ward,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: December 27, 2011 Docket No. 30,331 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, CANDACE S., Child-Appellant. APPEAL FROM
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I. ---o0o. vs. LUIS GOMEZ-LOBATO, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. SCWC
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-11-0000338 30-OCT-2013 08:12 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ---o0o STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LUIS GOMEZ-LOBATO, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I. ---o0o--
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-28901 31-DEC-2013 09:50 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I ---o0o-- STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, vs. ROBERT J. MCKNIGHT,
More informationMINNESOTA v. DICKERSON 113 S.Ct (1993) United States Supreme Court
Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice Volume 1 Issue 1 Article 19 Spring 4-1-1995 MINNESOTA v. DICKERSON 113 S.Ct. 2130 (1993) United States Supreme Court Follow this and additional
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 14-1470 In the Supreme Court of the United States WILLIAM ROBERT BERNARD, JR., v. Petitioner, STATE OF MINNESOTA, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to The Supreme Court of Minnesota BRIEF FOR PETITIONER
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 115,980 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 115,980 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. TRENTON MICHAEL HEIM, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Reno District Court;
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. RECEIVED, 7/27/2015 3:20 PM, Joanne P. Simmons, Fifth District Court of Appeal
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT RECEIVED, 7/27/2015 3:20 PM, Joanne P. Simmons, Fifth District Court of Appeal STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. CASE NO. 5D15-405 JOHN
More informationv No Kent Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 17, 2017 v No. 333827 Kent Circuit Court JENNIFER MARIE HAMMERLUND, LC
More informationNo. 112,387 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, JESSICA V. COX, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 112,387 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. JESSICA V. COX, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The test to determine whether an individual has standing to
More informationCRIMINAL PROCEDURE SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST WARRANTLESS COLLECTION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION FROM CELL PHONES DEEMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST WARRANTLESS COLLECTION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION FROM CELL PHONES DEEMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014). 1 STEWART JAMES ALVIS In
More informationSTATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Janet Sue Shriner, Respondent.
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A07-181 State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Janet Sue Shriner, Respondent. Filed October 2, 2007 Affirmed Minge, Judge Dissenting, Willis, Judge Dakota County District
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,460 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JAMES BADZIN, Appellant,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,460 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS JAMES BADZIN, Appellant, v. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Johnson
More informationState Courtroom Doors Closed to Evidence Obtained by Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami Law Review 10-1-1961 State Courtroom Doors Closed to Evidence Obtained by Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Carey A. Randall
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Julie Negovan, : Appellant : : v. : : Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Department of Transportation, : No. 200 C.D. 2017 Bureau of Driver Licensing : Submitted:
More informationDocket No Agenda 15-May THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. JOHNSON, Appellee. Opinion filed October 18, 2001.
JUSTICE FITZGERALD delivered the opinion of the court: Docket No. 90383-Agenda 15-May 2001. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. JOHNSON, Appellee. Opinion filed October 18, 2001.
More informationSCWC IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I
SCWC-12-0000870 Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-12-0000870 24-APR-2013 03:00 PM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ASSOCIATION OF CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS OF TROPICS AT WAIKELE, by its
More informationSTORAGE NAME: h0575a.jud DATE: March 3, 1999 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY ANALYSIS BILL #: HB 575
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY ANALYSIS BILL #: HB 575 RELATING TO: SPONSOR(S): COMPANION BILL(S): DUI/Chemical Test Rep. Stafford SB 688(i) ORIGINATING COMMITTEE(S)/COMMITTEE(S) OF REFERENCE:
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I. ---o0o--- BRUCE EDWARD COX Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-12-0000762 16-AUG-2016 08:05 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ---o0o--- BRUCE EDWARD COX Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CARLYN DAVIDSON COX,
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,721 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,721 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. WILFRED J. NWOJI JR., Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Sedgwick
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 20, 2005 V No. 256027 Wayne Circuit Court JEREMY FISHER, LC No. 04-000969 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationNO CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS
NO. 12-14-00190-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLANT V. ALMA MUNOZ GHAFFER, APPELLEE APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS
More informationSTATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Todd Eugene Trahan, Appellant.
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-0931 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Todd Eugene Trahan, Appellant. Filed October 13, 2015 Reversed and remanded Halbrooks, Judge Dissenting, Ross, Judge
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI. ---ooo---
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-15-0000865 29-OCT-2018 08:24 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ---ooo--- STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MATTHEW SEAN SASAI,
More informationNO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF HAWAII
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0000858 05-FEB-2013 04:18 PM NO. CAAP-12-0000858 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: U. S. (1999) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 98 223 FLORIDA, PETITIONER v. TYVESSEL TYVORUS WHITE ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA [May 17, 1999] JUSTICE STEVENS,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI. ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-15-0000402 16-MAY-2018 09:37 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RACHEL VIAMOANA UI, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA John T. Hayes, : Appellant : : v. : : Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Department of Transportation, : No. 1196 C.D. 2017 Bureau of Driver Licensing : Submitted:
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I. ---o0o--- KAUAI SPRINGS, INC., Petitioner/Appellant-Appellee, vs. SCWC-29440
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-29440 28-FEB-2014 03:11 PM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ---o0o--- KAUAI SPRINGS, INC., Petitioner/Appellant-Appellee, vs. PLANNING COMMISSION OF
More informationAPPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DUNKLIN COUNTY. Honorable Stephen R. Sharp, Circuit Judge
STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. SD30959 ) Filed: August 25, 2011 JOHN L. LEMONS, ) ) Appellant. ) APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DUNKLIN COUNTY Honorable Stephen R. Sharp, Circuit Judge
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KM COA KIMBERLEE MICHELLE BRATCHER STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2014-KM-01060-COA KIMBERLEE MICHELLE BRATCHER APPELLANT v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/09/2014 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JOHN HUEY
More information