COM 0314.036 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

SEPTEMBER 9, 1976 629 I once received while eating with some friends at Wo Fat. And we were served some fortune - cookies, as a Chinese restaurant is likely to do, and in my fortune cookie there was a fortune, as there sometimes is, and this fortune said: "Open your mind before you open your mouth." And so I've been trying to do that, up until today. However, today I feel ~'I~ very much compelled to open my mouth, having opened my mind up until today on several matters. This is the first of several matters. ~ I will start off by declaring a bias, in a sense, because I do work in the prosecutor's office in Maui county. However, I proposed these both from the viewpoint of my occupation as well as a private citizen. And I do so because there has been a great concern expressed about the growing crime rate, and it seems like every candidate nowadays is trying [o espouse it. But for once we have a chance to do something about it instead of just giving lip service, Now in this particular amendment where I have proposed deleting the right to privacy ill provision, I can understand that some people may feel--it's like speaking against mother- ` hood, to some extent. Why is it wrong to include the right to privacy? or what are my objections to this? Let me first of all say that I am not against privacy, individual privacy; we're no[ trying to get a state of Big Brotherism or 1984. My principle objections are that this right is already in the Constitution. It's set out very clearly and it's delineated very clearly, This provision does not add to it; in fact, this provision as I see it--and i I might be wrong--will in fact hamper law enforcement. As [o my first point, that this right is already here, (would refer the delegates to Section 5 of Article I--if you would please look a[ your Constitution. For those of you who do not have rnpies of your Constitution with you, I will quote it: "Searches, Seizures and Invasion of Privacy, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, J papers and effects against unreasonable searches, seizures, and invasions of privacy shall not be violated...." This was put in by [he 1968 constitutional convention. If I may, I would draw the attention of this body to Standing Committee Report No. 55 from the 1968 convention, es to what this right of privacy involves. I'm referring i~ to the Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention. Volume 1, page 233. "Your Com- j! mi[tee is of the opinion [hat inclusion of the term 'invasions of privacy' will effectively - protect the individual's wishes for privacy as a legitimate social interest. The proposed amendment is intended to include protection against indiscriminate wiretapping as well as undue government inquiry into and regulation of those areas of a person's life which are defined as necessary to insure 'man's individuality and human dignity.' Your Com- mittee urges the adoption of this amendment." Therefore, Mr. Chairman, in reading Standing Committee Report No. 69 on our present Bill of Rights, I find nothing new that is being proposed. There is the same language relating to man's individuality and human dignity as was contained in the f ~ standing committee report 10 years ago when rights against invasions of privacy was put in the Constitution. So the point is that everything the committee report wants is 4,' already there. Why then are we trying to modify the Constitution? I'm very leery when anyone tries [o tamper with the Bill of Rights. They've stood with us since 1787, and these are basically consistent with our U.S. Bill of Rights. Now, what alarms me is that by putting in the language as it is right now--[hat the right to privacy "is recognized and shall not be infringed without the showing oP a compelling state interest"--goes beyond our present statutory law and would in fact hinder law enforcement. T call the attention of this body to page 9 of Standing Committee Report No. 69, where it indicates, near the top, that "it is expected that in certain situations the interest of the State will rise to such an intensity that it will be deemed a compelling state interest," Now this is not the present understanding of our case law. We do not have to find a com- i pelling state interest; for instance, to be able [o obtain a search warrant when there is illegal activity going on, what has to be done is an affidavit has to be produced to a judge showing probable cause that there is criminal conduct in a particular dwelling and that this should therefore entitle law enforcement officers to enter and try to stop it. ~ i emphasize--probable cause must be shown to a judge. This language for "com- pelling state interest," to me, would necessitate a much higher standard to execute a search warrant. The result would then be that i[ would be virtually impossible, as I can see it, to stop criminal activity conducted in what can be considered a dwelling.