The opinion of the court, filed on December 22, 1999, is amended as follows (deletions are lined out and additions are double underscored):
1. Line 2 from the top of page 12: the videotape as it related to the alleged drug transaction.
2. Lines 6-8 from the bottom of page 15: (App. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (quoting State v. Anderson, 84 Hawaii 462, 466-67, 935 P.2d 1007, 1011-12 (1997) (citations, internal quotation marks, brackets, and emphasis omitted)).
3. Lines 17 through 23 from the top of page 20: events recorded recording of the alleged drug transaction on the videotape. However, its [conclusions] conclusion No. 4 rests on the contents of what the videotape purportedly disclosed as to Defendant's "subjective expectation of privacy while dealing drugs on a busy public sidewalk[.]" The briefs of Defendant and amicus curiae implicitly assume along with the court that the events of the purported drug deal transpiring at the time of the recording constituted probable cause for Defendant's arrest. We proceed to decide the appeal in the posture in which it is presented to us by the parties; we do not determine whether the events seen on
4. Line 12 from the top of page 21: Our next inquiry then, is whether Defendant's constitutional
5. Line 15 from the top of page 38: In Pattioay, State v. Kirn, 70 Haw. 206, 767 P.2d 1238 (1989),
6. Line 21 from the top of page 38: the court in Kirn indicated that . . . [a] "violation
7. Line 3 from the bottom of page 38: (citations omitted)). In addition, The supreme court also noted that our "courts have inherent
8. Line 2 from the bottom of page 42: independence, integrity, and to ensure a fair litigation process, it does
9. Lines 9-11 from the bottom of page 44: non-compliance [with] Rule 161.'" Dowsett, 10 Haw. App. Id. at 495, 878 P.2d at 742 (quoting State v. Sugimoto, 62 Haw. 259, 262, 614 P.2d 386, 389 (1980) (additional citations omitted)) State v. Marzo, 64 Haw. 395, 397, 641 P.2d 1338, 1340 (1982) (footnote omitted)) (brackets in original).
10. Line 6 from the bottom of page 46: any combination of the foregoing measures sanctions.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to incorporate the foregoing changes in the original opinion.
JAMES S. BURNS
Chief Judge
CORINNE K. A. WATANABE
Associate Judge
SIMEON R. ACOBA, JR.
Associate Judge