good faith challenge in Hawaii

2013To determine whether a pri- or conviction “was conceded by the defendant,” this Court held in Sinagoga that in ordinary sentencing situations, which includes sentencing under HRS § 706-668.5, after the sentencing judge learns of a defendant’s prior conviction(s) pursuant to a PSI report or otherwise, “each conviction listed may be used against defendant except those as to which the defendant timely responds with a good faith challenge on the record that the prior criminal conviction was (1) uneoun-seled, (2) otherwise invalidly entered and/or (3) not against the defendant.” Heggland, 118 Hawai

2013No. 92-0138(3) because “each conviction listed may be used against defendant except those as to which the defendant timely responds with a good faith challenge on the record that the prior criminal conviction was ... not against the defendant.” Heggland, 118 Hawai'i at 439-40 , 193 P.3d at 355-56 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

2013Specifically, the ICA held that any convictions contained in a PSI report “may be used against the defendant except those as to which the defendant timely responds with a good faith challenge on the record that the prior criminal conviction was (1) uncounseled, (2) otherwise invalidly entered, and/or (3) not against the defendant.” Id. at 444-45, 918 P.2d at 251-52 .

2013Accordingly, “if the presentence report states that the defendant has a prior criminal conviction, and the defendant does not respond to that report with a good faith challenge on the record . . . that prior criminal conviction is reliable for all sentencing purposes.” Id.

1995Because Act 167’s 1990 amendments pertaining to the good faith defense and the reasonable belief defense did not apply on September 29, 1989, the reasonable belief defense was not available to Gray and the controlling law with respect to his good faith defense was State v. Palpallatoc, 71 Haw. 178 , 787 P.2d 214 (1990).

1995Because Act 167’s 1990 amendments pertaining to the good faith defense and the reasonable belief defense did not apply on September 29, 1989, the reasonable belief defense was not available to Gray and the controlling law with respect to his good faith defense was State v. Palpallatoc, 71 Haw. 178 , 787 P.2d 214 (1990).

2004State v. Lesher, 66 Haw. 534, 537 , 669 P.2d 146, 148 (1983), superseded by statutory amendments establishing a good faith defense for car borrowers as stated in State v. Shamp, 86 Hawai'i 331, 336-38 , 949 P.2d 171, 176-78 (App.1997).

2004State v. Lesher, 66 Haw. 534, 537 , 669 P.2d 146, 148 (1983), superseded by statutory amendments establishing a good faith defense for car borrowers as stated in State v. Shamp, 86 Hawai'i 331, 336-38 , 949 P.2d 171, 176-78 (App.1997).

2016In three exceptional instances, less than actual notice to cotenants may fulfill the good faith requirement: (1) “where the tenant in possession has no reason to suspect that a cotenancy exists”; (2) “where the tenant in possession makes a good faith, reasonable effort to notify the cotenants but is unable to locate them”; or (3) “where the tenants out of possession already have actual knowledge that the tenant in possession is claiming adversely to their interests.” City & County of Honolulu v. Bennett, 57 Haw. 195, 209-10 , 552 P.2d 1380, 1390 (1976).

2016In three exceptional instances, less than actual notice to cotenants may fulfill the good faith requirement: (1) “where the tenant in possession has no reason to suspect that a cotenancy exists”; (2) “where the tenant in possession makes a good faith, reasonable effort to notify the cotenants but is unable to locate them”; or (3) “where the tenants out of possession already have actual knowledge that the tenant in possession is claiming adversely to their interests.” City & County of Honolulu v. Bennett, 57 Haw. 195, 209-10 , 552 P.2d 1380, 1390 (1976).

2014See State v. Matsunaga, 82 Hawai'i 162, 168-69 , 920 P.2d 376, 382-83 (App.1996) (the good faith exception to the warrant requirement is rejected under the Hawai'i Constitution); compare State v. McKnight, 131 Hawai'i 379, 399 , 319 P.3d 298, 318 , 2013 WL 6860774 at *17 (Dec. 31, 2013) (holding that an error by the issuing judge resulting in conflicting dates on the face of the warrant did not render a search warrant invalid). .

2014See State v. Matsunaga, 82 Hawai#i 162, 168-69, 920 P.2d 376, 382-83 (App. 1996) (the good faith exception to the warrant requirement is rejected under the Hawai#i Constitution); compare State v. McKnight, --- Hawai#i ---, --- P.3d ---, 2013 WL 680774 at *17 (Dec. 31, 2013) (holding that an error by the issuing judge resulting in conflicting dates on the face of the warrant did not render a search warrant invalid). -78- *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** The ascent of state supreme courts’ independence in interpreting their own constitutions to afford more o

2013This jurisdiction’s precedent plainly rejected the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. 14 See Lopez, 78 Hawai'i at 446 , 896 P.2d at 902 .

2013This jurisdiction’s precedent plainly rejected the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. 14 See Lopez, 78 Hawai'i at 446 , 896 P.2d at 902 .

2007Id. at 554-55, 985 P.2d at 1121-22 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original).

2004Bennett, 57 Haw. at 209 , 552 P.2d at 1390 ; see also *256 Morinoue, 86 Hawai'i at 83 , 947 P.2d at 951 ; Petran v. Allencastre, 91 Hawai'i 545, 556 , 985 P.2d 1112, 1123 (App.1999) (reasoning that “a eotenant in possession ought to have known of a cotenancy if evidence thereof existed in the Bureau of Conveyances”).

2005In affirming the circuit court’s reversal of the Appeals Officer’s decision, we noted that “[a]t best, the Employee’s action was an iso lated instance of negligence or a good-faith error in judgment.” Id.

2005As in Camara , where “the Employee[’s] violation of the] traffic code by passing a vehicle on a solid line” was, “[a]t best, ... an isolated instance of negligence or a good-faith error in judgment[,]” 67 Haw. at 218 , 685 P.2d at 798 (emphasis added), Medeiros’s isolated instance of poor judgment by joking about violence, although contrary to the Employer’s “zero tolerance” policy, likewise fell outside the scope of misconduct delineated in HAR § 12-5-51.

2022Id.

2022See State v. Kong, 131 Hawai#i 94, 107, 315 P.3d 720, 733 (2013) (declining to exercise plain error review where the defendant or his counsel failed to "provide a good faith challenge on the record stating the bases for challenging the convictions listed in the PSI report").

2007Relying on State v. Sinagoga, 81 Hawai'i 421 , 918 P.2d 228 (App.1996), and State v. Mitsuda, 86 Hawai'i 37 , 947 P.2d 349 (1997), the State now argues that the circuit court erred in denying the State’s motion because, in the absence of a good-faith challenge by Heggland as to the counseled nature of his prior conviction, the State had no burden of proving that Heggland was represented by counsel or waived representation of counsel at the time of his prior conviction.

2007Relying on State v. Sinagoga, 81 Hawai'i 421 , 918 P.2d 228 (App.1996), and State v. Mitsuda, 86 Hawai'i 37 , 947 P.2d 349 (1997), the State now argues that the circuit court erred in denying the State’s motion because, in the absence of a good-faith challenge by Heggland as to the counseled nature of his prior conviction, the State had no burden of proving that Heggland was represented by counsel or waived representation of counsel at the time of his prior conviction.

1996We note initially that although the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the fourth amendment’s exclusionary rule does not bar the use in the prosecutor’s case-in-chief of evidence obtained by police officers acting in reasonable good-faith reliance upon a search warrant ultimately found to be invalid, United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), the Hawaii Supreme Court, in State v. Lopez, 78 Hawai'i 433, 446 , 896 P.2d 889, 902 (1995), appears to have rejected the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule for purposes of Hawaii constitutional law.

1996We note initially that although the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the fourth amendment’s exclusionary rule does not bar the use in the prosecutor’s case-in-chief of evidence obtained by police officers acting in reasonable good-faith reliance upon a search warrant ultimately found to be invalid, United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), the Hawaii Supreme Court, in State v. Lopez, 78 Hawai'i 433, 446 , 896 P.2d 889, 902 (1995), appears to have rejected the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule for purposes of Hawaii constitutional law.

2025Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

2024Id. (cleaned up).

2024See id. at 435, 375 P.3d at 214 .

2020See State v. Heggland, 118 Hawai#i 425, 443, 193 P.3d 341, 359 (2008). 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER v. Kealoha, 142 Hawai#i 46, 60, 414 P.3d 98, 112 (2018) ("Whether imposed by free standing order, or as a condition of probation, restitution is part of the defendant's sentence and judgment of conviction." (emphasis added)); State v. DeLima, No. CAAP-17- 0000914, 2019 WL 2265044 , at *1-2 (Haw.

2014See State v. Matsunaga, 82 Hawai'i 162, 168-69 , 920 P.2d 376, 382-83 (App.1996) (the good faith exception to the warrant requirement is rejected under the Hawai'i Constitution); compare State v. McKnight, 131 Hawai'i 379, 399 , 319 P.3d 298, 318 , 2013 WL 6860774 at *17 (Dec. 31, 2013) (holding that an error by the issuing judge resulting in conflicting dates on the face of the warrant did not render a search warrant invalid). .

2014See State v. Matsunaga, 82 Hawai'i 162, 168-69 , 920 P.2d 376, 382-83 (App.1996) (the good faith exception to the warrant requirement is rejected under the Hawai'i Constitution); compare State v. McKnight, 131 Hawai'i 379, 399 , 319 P.3d 298, 318 , 2013 WL 6860774 at *17 (Dec. 31, 2013) (holding that an error by the issuing judge resulting in conflicting dates on the face of the warrant did not render a search warrant invalid). .

2013See State v. Covert, 368 S.C. 188 , 628 S.E.2d 482, 486-87 (S.C.Ct.App.2006), aff'd, 382 S.C. 205 , 675 S.E.2d 740 (2009) (conducting a good faith exception analysis after finding that a warrant was defective because the magistrate’s signature was dated two days after the search, and “there was no evidence that the magistrate signed the warrant before the search” (emphasis added)); State v. Maxwell, 38 So.3d 1086, 1091 (La.Ct.App.2010) (holding that a warrant lacking a description of items to be seized was not facially invalid, and finding, in the alternative, that "even if the warrant were fo

2013Ct. App. 2010) (holding that a warrant lacking a description of items to be seized was not facially invalid, and finding, in the alternative, that “even if the warrant were found to be deficient,” the seized evidence was admissible under the good faith exception); People v. Turnage, 642 N.E.2d 1235, 1238-39 (Ill. 1994) (applying a good faith exception analysis after determining that a “repetitive” arrest warrant issued after the defendant was arrested on identical charges and released on bond was invalid). 27 Article II, section 10 of the Montana Constitution provides: “The right of individual

2013See Torres, 125 Hawai'i at 396 , 262 P.3d at 1020 .

2013See Torres, 125 Hawai'i at 396 , 262 P.3d at 1020 .

2013See State v. Covert, 368 S.C. 188 , 628 S.E.2d 482, 486-87 (S.C.Ct.App.2006), aff'd, 382 S.C. 205 , 675 S.E.2d 740 (2009) (conducting a good faith exception analysis after finding that a warrant was defective because the magistrate’s signature was dated two days after the search, and “there was no evidence that the magistrate signed the warrant before the search” (emphasis added)); State v. Maxwell, 38 So.3d 1086, 1091 (La.Ct.App.2010) (holding that a warrant lacking a description of items to be seized was not facially invalid, and finding, in the alternative, that "even if the warrant were fo

2013See State v. Covert, 368 S.C. 188 , 628 S.E.2d 482, 486-87 (S.C.Ct.App.2006), aff'd, 382 S.C. 205 , 675 S.E.2d 740 (2009) (conducting a good faith exception analysis after finding that a warrant was defective because the magistrate’s signature was dated two days after the search, and “there was no evidence that the magistrate signed the warrant before the search” (emphasis added)); State v. Maxwell, 38 So.3d 1086, 1091 (La.Ct.App.2010) (holding that a warrant lacking a description of items to be seized was not facially invalid, and finding, in the alternative, that "even if the warrant were fo

2013See Heggland, 118 Hawai#i at 432 n.4, 193 P.3d at 348 n.4 (noting that the defendant must “respond with a good faith challenge on the record stating, as to each challenged conviction, the basis or bases for the challenge.” (emphasis added)); cf. State v. Fox, 70 Haw. 46, 55 , 760 P.2d 670, 675 (1988) (“Fairness to the trial court impels a recitation in full of the grounds supporting an objection to the introduction of inadmissible matters.

2013See Heggland, 118 Hawai#i at 432 n.4, 193 P.3d at 348 n.4 (noting that the defendant must “respond with a good faith challenge on the record stating, as to each challenged conviction, the basis or bases for the challenge.” (emphasis added)); cf. State v. Fox, 70 Haw. 46, 55 , 760 P.2d 670, 675 (1988) (“Fairness to the trial court impels a recitation in full of the grounds supporting an objection to the introduction of inadmissible matters.

2013See State v. Covert, 368 S.C. 188 , 628 S.E.2d 482, 486-87 (S.C.Ct.App.2006), aff'd, 382 S.C. 205 , 675 S.E.2d 740 (2009) (conducting a good faith exception analysis after finding that a warrant was defective because the magistrate’s signature was dated two days after the search, and “there was no evidence that the magistrate signed the warrant before the search” (emphasis added)); State v. Maxwell, 38 So.3d 1086, 1091 (La.Ct.App.2010) (holding that a warrant lacking a description of items to be seized was not facially invalid, and finding, in the alternative, that "even if the warrant were fo

2013Ct. App. 2006), aff’d, 675 S.E.2d 740 (S.C. 2009) (conducting a good faith exception analysis after finding that a warrant was defective because the magistrate’s signature was dated two days after the search, and “there was no evidence that the magistrate signed the warrant before the search” (emphasis added)); State v. Maxwell, 38 So.3d 1086, 1091 (La.