Honolulu police officers who discovered an alleged indoor marijuana growing operation while responding to a dropped 911 call in Haleiwa conducted an illegal search, the state Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled recently.
The April 23 decision rejected the state’s attempt to use evidence from the search for a criminal case against Koalaukani Ramos-Saunders. Attorneys for both sides could not be reached Sunday.
Ramos-Saunders was indicted on charges of first-degree commercial promotion of marijuana and unlawful use of drug paraphernalia on Jan. 20, 2011.
According to court documents, the charges were in connection with a warrantless search at a Kamehameha Highway home on Dec. 3, 2010.
At about 7:40 that morning, two Honolulu Police Department officers responded to a report of a dropped 911 call from a number registered to a man living at the property.
When no one responded to the officers knocking at the man’s door, the officers walked around to the back of his unit, calling out to anyone inside.
The officers looked inside a back window and saw what appeared to be the barrel of a firearm with a silencer attached, sticking out from underneath a towel. The officers also noted the unit appeared in "disarray."
They called for backup and waited about 10 minutes for a third officer. All three officers discussed the situation and decided to enter the unit, where they found multiple marijuana plants and what appeared to be an indoor growing operation, court documents said.
No one was home at the time.
After he was indicted, Ramos-Saunders filed a motion claiming the search was illegal and requesting that the search evidence be suppressed.
At a hearing granting Ramos-Saunders’ motion, Circuit Judge Glenn Kim said the three officers may have had probable cause "to get a search warrant, (but) not to enter the house without a warrant."
The state argued it was reasonable for the officers to believe someone was inside requiring emergency aid, such as an unconscious person injured by the gun or a person in a hostage situation.
The appellate court disagreed and said that police were not faced with any immediate danger to life or serious injury.
