*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX 03-JUN-2022 10:22 AM Dkt. 19 OP IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Petitioner and Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. LEAH SKAPINOK, Respondent and Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee. SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX; CASE NO. 1DTA-19-01048) JUNE 3, 2022 RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, AND McKENNA, JJ., AND CIRCUIT JUDGE WONG, ASSIGNED BY REASON OF VACANCY, WITH WILSON, J., DISSENTING OPINION OF THE COURT BY RECKTENWALD, C.J. I. INTRODUCTION This case requires us to examine the practice of asking so-called medical rule-out questions in the course of an Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OVUII) *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** investigation. An officer administering a standardized field sobriety test (SFST) to an OVUII suspect asks the medical rule- out questions, which “rule out” other reasons, besides intoxication, for poor performance on the SFST. Leah Skapinok was asked seven medical rule-out questions while in police custody, before she was advised of her Miranda 1 rights. If the questions were interrogation, article I, section 10 of the Hawai‘i Constitution requires that her answers to them be suppressed. We hold that these questions are interrogation under the Hawai‘i Constitution. There is no per se exception under the Hawai‘i Constitution for questions “necessarily ‘attendant to’ [a] legitimate police procedure.” Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 605 (1990) (citation omitted). To avoid suppression for want of Miranda warnings, such questions must pass muster under our well-established interrogation test: “whether the officer should have known that his words and actions were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the defendant.” State v. Paahana, 66 Haw. 499, 503, 666 P.2d 592, 595–96 (1983) (citing Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301 (1980)). The medical rule-out questions asked to Skapinok in this case were “reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** response” because her answers to them aided in interpreting the SFSTs’ results – that is, her answers supported the inference that she was intoxicated because no medical cause could explain any aberrations in her test performance. Skapinok’s answers to the medical rule-out questions must be suppressed. But we cannot say the same for any of the other challenged evidence. Neither asking whether Skapinok would participate in the SFST nor asking whether she understood the instructions to the test would be reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. And the evidence gathered thereafter, including her performance on the SFST, was not an exploitation of, or benefit derived from, the medical rule-out questions; accordingly, subsequent evidence was not the fruit of the poisonous tree. II. BACKGROUND A. Skapinok’s Arrest On August 18, 2019, around 11:00 p.m., Honolulu Police Department (HPD) Officer William Meredith observed a white Toyota Tacoma speeding down King Street in Honolulu. 2 He followed the vehicle onto Ward …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals