State v. Enos’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Enos] was convicted of driving under the influence in violation of HRS § 291-4 and of promoting a dangerous drug in the third degree in violation of HRS § 712-1243. [Enos] appeals the drug conviction, contending that the court below erred in not suppressing as evidence four heat-sealed, clear plastic cellophane bags, containing a white powdery substance, found in, and removed from [Enos]’s pants pockets, during a search following his arrest on the drunken driving charge, as well as statements thereafter made by him. The parties have stipulated that [Enos]’s later statements were the fruit of the poisonous tree and stand or fall on the validity of the search and seizure of the four packets. On the authority of State v. Kaluna, 55 Haw. 361 , 520 P.2d 51 (1974), we reverse because, as that case held, the search and the seizure of the cellophane packets violated Article I, section 7 of the Constitution of the State of Hawaii. The court below entered findings of fact and conclusions of law which set out the salient facts. [Enos] was traveling in excess of the posted speed limit. Because of that, he was pulled over by Officer Yomes who, on approaching the ear’, observed [Enos] to have watery, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and a strong odor of alcoholic beverage. He was asked to exit the car and perform the standard field sobriety tests, which he failed. The officer thereupon placed him under arrest. As the court below found: 6. ... Officer Yomes then conducted a pat-down search o”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Rodrigues

2. “We have repeatedly upheld the right of an officer making an arrest to take reasonable and appropriate steps to protect himself from possible weapons to which the arrestee may have access. State v. Barrett, 67 Haw. 650 , 701 P.2d 1277 (1985); State v. Ortiz, 67 Haw. 181 , 683 P.2d 822 (1984); State v. Kaluna, [ 55 Haw. 361 , 520 P.2d 51 (1974)]. We think it clear that on an arrest for drunken driving, it is per se reasonable for an officer to conduct a pat-down for weapons. Here, the officer found no weapons. On this record, there was nothing to indicate that there were, concealed on the person of appellant, any fruits or instrumentalities of the crime of drunken driving. Given the finding by the court, which was in accord with the testimony, that the officer was without any prior knowledge or suspicion of the existence of contraband, the warrantless search and seizure, beyond the pat-down for weapons, violated appellant’s rights under the Constitution of the State of Hawaii. The order denying a suppression of the four cellophane packets was error.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Reed