Officers who assist the Adult Probation Division (APD) , First
Circuit Court, in warrantless searches of probationers shall act
in accordance with this directive and the attached memorandum of
agreement.
BACKGROUND

A. The Hawaii Supreme Court has ruled that APD officers
have the authority to execute warrantless searches on
the person, residence, vehic le , or other property of a
probationer. In so doing, the court also ruled that
such searches must be reasonable and must be justified
by a reasonable suspicion supported by specific and
articulable facts that probation is being violated.

B. The purpose of searching a probationer is to provide
correctional supervision and rehabilitation to the
probationer. The APD is restricted to searching for
evidence of probation violation.

C. The search cannot be used as a pretext to investigate
and prosecute criminal activity. Therefore, new and
additional criminal cases must be investigated through
appropriate police channels.

D. Warrantless searches of probationers must be initiated
and conducted by APD officers.
RESPONSIBILITIES

A. The commander of the Specialized Services Division
(SSD) shall serve as the Honolulu Police Department
(HPD) liaison with the APD.

B. Upon request by the APD, SSD officers will assist APD
officers in warrantless searches of probationers.

C. SSD officers may be requested by probation officers to
perform the following services:

1. Provide security to APD of f icers confronting a
probationer.

2. Arrest the suspect and initiate a criminal
investigation and police reports if criminal
evidence is discovered by APD officers during the
warrantless search or if other on-view criminal
violations are observed. APD officers will be
witnesses in the criminal case.

3. Assume evidential custody of contraband items
discovered by APD officers.

D. See the attached memorandum of agreement with the APD
for additional information.

E. Police officers exceeding police powers in an APD
investigation may jeopardize the prosecutability of any
resulting criminal cases.
REFERENCE

State v. Propios and Palea, 76 Hawaii 474, 879 P.2d 1057
(1994) .