*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
NO. 25766
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
STATE OF HAWAI`I, Plaintiff-Appellant
vs.
DONNA SNIFFEN, Defendant-Appellee
APPEAL FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT
(CR. NO. 02-1-0315(1))
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)
The circuit court ordered suppression because the warrant that authorized a search for the evidence seized erroneously commanded police to search a location different from that described in the warrant's recitation of probable cause. On appeal, the State contends that suppression based on this discrepancy was wrong because: (1) a mere typographical error should not invalidate the seizure of evidence sufficiently described in the warrant; and (2) the seizure was proper because the police relied in good faith on what appeared to be a valid warrant.
Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we hold that: (1) the search warrant violated Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 41(c) (2002) because it commanded police to search a location different from that described in the warrant's recitation of probable cause; and (2) the violation of HRPP Rule 41(c) required the fruits of the search to be suppressed. See State v. Endo, 83 Hawai`i 87, 924 P.2d 581 (App. 1996). Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the order from which the appeal is taken is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, June 29, 2005.
On the briefs:
Arleen Y. Watanabe,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
for the plaintiff-appellant
State of Hawai`i
Joyce K. Matsumori-Hoshijo,
Deputy Public Defender,
for the defendant-appellee
Donna Sniffen