NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
24-AUG-2026
07:54 AM
Dkt. 94 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
v.
LAVERNE L. LEE, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 5CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)
Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee State of Hawaiʻi
(State) appeals, and Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant
Laverne L. Lee (Lee) cross-appeals, from the Circuit Court of
the Fifth Circuit's (circuit court) July 23, 2025 "Findings of
Fact; Conclusions of Law; and Order Granting in Part and Denying
in Part Motion to Suppress Evidence" (Suppression Order). 1
On May 4, 2023, the State charged Lee by Felony
Information with one count of Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the
1 The Honorable Randal G.B. Valenciano presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Second Degree, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)
§ 712-1242(1)(b)(i) (Supp. 2016). In November 2024, Lee moved
to suppress evidence "allegedly recovered by police on April 20,
2022," during a search of Lee's vehicle, pursuant to article I,
section 7 of the Constitution of the State of Hawaiʻi, and the
Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The search
of Lee's vehicle was conducted pursuant to a Search Warrant
issued on April 14, 2022, and executed on April 20, 2022. The
Search Warrant was supported by Officer Tyler Yates' (Officer
Yates) "Affidavit in Support of Search Warrant" (Affidavit),
which included attachments setting forth Officer Yates'
"Training and Experience," and the "Observation of Affiant."
(Formatting altered.)
Officer Yates submitted the return of search warrant
on June 9, 2022. The return of search warrant included a
"Search Warrant Property Receipt for Case 22-04957" (Property
Receipt), which was signed on May 11, 2022. The Property
Receipt included an itemized list of the property that was
seized during the search of Lee's vehicle.
The circuit court heard Lee's "Motion to Suppress
Evidence" (Motion to Suppress) and entered its Suppression
Order. The circuit court granted the Motion to Suppress in
part, finding that Officer Yates violated Hawaiʻi Rules of Penal
Procedure (HRPP) Rule 41(d) by filing the return of search
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
warrant fifty days after the search, and suppressing the
evidence seized from Lee's vehicle on that basis. The circuit
court denied the Motion to Suppress in part, rejecting Lee's
argument that the search was not supported by probable cause.
On appeal, the State raises a single point of error,
contending that "the circuit court erred by suppressing evidence
seized pursuant to the search warrant, reasoning that [HRPP Rule
41(d)] had been violated" where "the lead officer
unintentionally did not promptly file the search warrant return
and that [Lee] was not prejudiced by the 50-day delay in filing
the return." (Formatting altered) (footnote omitted.)
On cross-appeal, Lee also raises a single point of
error, contending that "[t]he circuit court erred when it denied
in part Lee's [M]otion to [S]uppress and determined that the
evidence underlying the search warrant was sufficient for
probable cause." (Formatting altered.)
We resolve the State's and Lee's points of error as
follows:
(1) Probable Cause: We first address Lee's contention
that the Search Warrant was not supported by probable cause
"when it allowed a search of Lee's vehicle, license plate number
KEH 764, and insufficient evidence was provided of any drug
activity associated with that particular vehicle." Lee contends
that the circuit court therefore erred in denying her Motion to
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Suppress in part, and in entering conclusion of law (COL) 4. 2
"[T]he determination of probable cause for the issuance of a
search warrant warrants de novo review on appeal." State v.
Navas, 81 Hawaiʻi 113, 123, 913 P.2d 39, 49 (1996) (formatting
altered).
In Iwatate, this court reiterated that,
[U]nder the safeguards of the fourth amendment to the
United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the
Hawaiʻi Constitution, all arrests and searches must be based
upon probable cause.
Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances
within one's knowledge and of which one has reasonably
trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to
warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an
offense has been committed. Direct evidence, however, is
not necessary for a probable cause determination by the
[judge]. The issuance of a search warrant is prohibited
except upon a finding of probable cause supported by oath
or affirmation.
108 Hawaiʻi at 368, 120 P.3d at 267 (quoting Navas, 81 Hawaiʻi at
115-16, 913 P.2d at 41-42).
Officer Yates' Affidavit established probable cause
for the Search Warrant. The Affidavit represented that, in
2 COL 4 states,
In the present case, although Officer Yates does not indicate any
information that [Lee] allegedly used the subject vehicle to
conduct alleged drug sales and no assisting officer is quoted as
clearly seeing [Lee] utilize the subject vehicle at the time of
(or immediately before) the controlled buy, there is sufficient
information to link the subject vehicle to [Lee] and the
information from assisting officers do create a permissible
inference that there is a nexus between [Lee's] alleged drug
sales and the subject vehicle. [See State v. Iwatate, 108 Hawaiʻi
361, 120 P.3d 260 (App. 2005)].
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
April 2022, Officer Yates obtained information from a
confidential Cooperative Source (CS) that Lee "was distributing
crystal methamphetamine on the island of [Kauaʻi]." The CS
described Lee, and related that Lee "drives a white colored
Lexus SUV with black colored rims."
Between April 6 and 12, 2022, CS participated in a
controlled buy of crystal methamphetamine from Lee in
coordination with Officer Yates and other Kauaʻi Police
Department (KPD) officers. Prior to the controlled buy, CS met
with Officer Yates at a prearranged meet location. CS was
instructed to follow a prearranged route directly to a
prearranged buy location, and CS was provided traceable money by
the KPD to purchase an agreed upon amount of crystal
methamphetamine from Lee. CS's person and vehicle were searched
to ensure that CS did not have "illegal narcotics, contraband,
weapons, and money."
Officer Yates and other KPD officers monitored CS
travelling directly from the meet location to the prearranged
buy location. At the buy location, two KPD officers
participating in the operation "observed a white colored Lexus
SUV with tinted windows and black rims." A third KPD officer
related that the white colored Lexus SUV bore the license plate
number "KEH764." A KPD officer observed CS arrive at the buy
location, "approach the white colored SUV bearing [Hawaiʻi] State
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
License plate KEH764 and make contact with [Lee]," and "leave
the prearranged buy location."
Officer Yates and the other KPD officers monitored CS
travel directly from the buy location to the meet location. At
the meet location, Officer Yates "obtained the agreed amount of
crystal methamphetamine that [CS] just purchased from [Lee]."
Following the controlled buy, the crystal methamphetamine
purchased by CS from Lee was tested and "reacted positive for
the presence of methamphetamine." Officer Yates conducted a
State of Hawaiʻi Motor Vehicle Inquiry, and "learned that [the]
vehicle bearing [Hawaiʻi] State license plates KEH764 is
described as [a] white colored 2007 Lexus MPVH . . . registered
to [Lee]."
Officer Yates' sworn statement represented that, based
on the above observations,
[Officer Yates] believes that crystal methamphetamine
and/or Drug Paraphernalia can be located within the vehicle
described as a white colored 2007 Lexus MPVH bearing
[Hawaiʻi] State License plate KEH764, registered to [Lee]
. . . . [Officer Yates] therefore requests the issuance of
a search warrant for the following:
A motor vehicle bearing [Hawaiʻi] State license plates
KEH764 described as a white colored 2007 Lexus MPVH
registered to [Lee] . . . , including but not limited to
purses, backpacks, bags, fanny-packs, hand-held electronic
devices, containers, packages, luggage, receipts,
documents, and clothing found within the vehicle.
Lee argues on appeal that "[t]he evidence presented in
the [A]ffidavit failed to sufficiently link the vehicle searched
(the vehicle with license plate KEH 764) with any drug
6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
activity." Probable cause is based on the reasonable inferences
drawn from the totality of the circumstances. See State v.
Chong, 52 Haw. 226, 231, 473 P.2d 567, 571 (1970) ("[P]robable
cause is generally based upon a combination of factors, which
together form a sort of mosaic, of which any one piece by itself
often might not be enough to constitute probable cause, but
which, when viewed as a whole, does constitute probable
cause."); State v. Ferrer, 95 Hawaiʻi 409, 431, 23 P.3d 744, 766
(App. 2001) ("[W]e consider the totality of the circumstances to
determine, de novo, whether [a police officer] had probable
cause to arrest [the defendant]." (formatting altered)). Here,
the Affidavit established that the observations of CS and KPD
officers who participated in the controlled buy, taken as a
whole, support a reasonable inference that Lee is the registered
owner of a white Lexus with license plate number KEH 764, and
that, while in this vehicle, Lee sold crystal methamphetamine to
CS at a controlled buy location.
We conclude that the circuit court was not wrong in
determining that the Search Warrant was supported by probable
cause. We therefore affirm the circuit court's denial of Lee's
Motion to Suppress on that basis, and we affirm COL 4.
(2) HRPP Rule 41(d): We next address the State's
contention that the circuit court erred by suppressing the
evidence seized based on the violation of HRPP Rule 41(d). The
7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
State contends that the evidence should not have been suppressed
because Lee "was not prejudiced by [Officer Yates'] 50-day delay
in filing the return" of the search warrant, and that "noncompliance with HRPP Rule 41(d)," standing alone, "does not
require suppression of evidence." 3 (Formatting altered)
(emphasis omitted.) The State contends, on this basis, that the
circuit court erred in entering COL 7, which states,
Although the [State] argues that the requirement of a
prompt return should be treated as ministerial and Officer
Yates did not have ill intent, the length of the delay in
this case is sufficient to justify treatment of the prompt
return requirement as substantive and justify suppression
in order to incentivize the police and other law
enforcement to comply with the promptness requirement of
HRPP Rule 41(d).
In State v. Stachler, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court held
that,
[W]here, as here, there has been no showing that a
violation of [HRPP] Rule 41(d) procedures has resulted in
prejudice to the defendant's rights, a suppression remedy
is not appropriate.
This, of course, should in no way be interpreted as a
license to law enforcement officers to disregard the
procedures of [HRPP] Rule 41(d). We will not hesitate to
call into play the suppression remedy where a sufficient
showing of prejudice is made.
3 HRPP Rule 41(d) states, in pertinent part,
Execution and return with inventory. The officer taking
property under the warrant shall give to the person from
whom or from whose premises the property was taken a copy
of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken or
shall leave the copy and receipt at the place from which
the property was taken. The return shall be made promptly
and shall be accompanied by a written inventory of any
property taken.
(Emphasis added.) The State represents that it "does not dispute the circuit court's conclusion that a 50-day delay between execution of the search warrant and the filing of the search warrant return is not prompt." (Emphasis added.)
8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
58 Haw. 412, 422-23, 570 P.2d 1323, 1330 (1977) (citation
omitted). A finding of prejudice to the defendant's rights is
therefore required to "call into play the suppression remedy."
Id.
Here, it appears the circuit court ordered the
suppression of evidence seized in the search of Lee's vehicle on
the sole ground that "the length of the delay in this case is
sufficient to justify treatment of the prompt return requirement
as substantive and justify suppression in order to incentivize
the police and other law enforcement to comply with the
promptness requirement." 4
The record reflects that Lee failed to satisfy her
burden of demonstrating that Officer Yates' delayed return of
the search warrant resulted in prejudice to Lee. See id. at
4 At the hearing on the Motion to Suppress, the circuit court explained its ruling that Officer Yates' delayed return of the search warrant violated HRPP Rule 41(d), as follows:
[I]n regards to the [HRPP] Rule 41(d) [violation], the
[circuit] [c]ourt finds that Officer Yates didn't have bad
intent in filing the return. The return was filed June
9th. The search warrant was April 20th. The [circuit]
[c]ourt finds that the return -- search warrant return was
not filed promptly in accordance with [HRPP] Rule 41(d).
The [circuit] [c]ourt's concern is that if the [circuit]
[c]ourt treats this as ministerial and there is no
consequence, then there's no incentive for the police to
comply with -- there's no incentive for law enforcement to
comply with [HRPP] Rule 41(d). Based on that, the
[circuit] [c]ourt will grant the [M]otion to [S]uppress for
failure to comply with Rule -- HRPP Rule 41(d).
(Emphasis added.)
9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
422, 570 P.2d at 1330 (adopting the proposition that "a motion
to suppress because of violations of [HRPP] Rule 41(d) should be
granted only in instances where the defendant demonstrates
prejudice from the violation" (citation omitted)). Lee did not
introduce any evidence that would demonstrate that she suffered
any prejudice, nor did she argue to the circuit court that she
suffered prejudice. Given the lack of prejudice to Lee, we
conclude that the circuit court erred in suppressing the
evidence obtained from the search of Lee's vehicle based on the
violation of HRPP Rule 41(d).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm in part and
reverse in part the Suppression Order.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, August 24, 2026.
On the briefs: /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Presiding Judge
Sara K. Haley,
Deputy Public Defender, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen for Defendant-Appellee/ Associate Judge
Cross-Appellant.
/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Tracy Murakami, Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
County of Kauaʻi,
for Plaintiff-Appellant/
Cross-Appellee.
10