State v. Poaipuni

Dissenting Opinion by

RAMIL, J.,

with whom NAKAYAMA, J., joins.

I respectfully dissent. First, I would hold that the circuit court was correct in determining that the search of the toolshed was “independent and distinct” from the prior illegal search of the Poaipuni home.1 Second, I would also hold that Poaipuni’s custodial statement was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made pursuant to his Miranda rights.

A

The exclusionary rule provides that “ ‘[a] subsequent search even under warrant based upon the evidence obtained in the former tainted search is also tainted.’ ” State v. Brighter, 63…