Legal Opinion

State v. Barros

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided June 20, 2002No. 23755Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part 1

Opinion of

2Concurring in part, dissenting in part · AcobaAcoba, J.

The express authority included in Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 803-6 (1993) to conduct a warrant check when the infi-aetion is a violation, rests on the statute’s facial premise that a police officer has discretion to either arrest or to cite a pei-son who commits a violation and may, accordingly, conduct the check in aid of that decision. Because, in my view, a “jaywalking” violation is not an arrestable infraction either under our statutes or our state constitution, and, thus, the justification for a warrant cheek detention—to enable the officer to choose between making an…

3Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Atwater v. City of Lago VistaSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  2. Wyoming v. HoughtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  3. Richardson v. City and County of HonoluluHawaii Supreme Court · 1994
  4. State v. KotisHawaii Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Wong v. TakeuchiHawaii Supreme Court · 1998

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API