Hawaii Supreme Court· 4/3/1986

State v. Biggar

Citations

716 P.2d 493
68 Haw. 404
1986 Haw. LEXIS 74

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that the defendant’s act in leaving the stall door ajar by one inch did not eliminate the subjective expectation of privacy and, thus, the policeman’s look into the stall was a search
determining that the defendant exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy by closing the door to a toilet stall, and the fact that the door did not close completely did not eliminate this expectation
citing, inter alia, Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 576 (1967)
defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy inside a closed toilet stall, recognizable by society as objectively reasonable
defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy inside a closed toilet stall, recognizable by society as objectively reasonable
reasonable expectation of privacy not eliminated by crack one half to one inch wide where toilet stall door did not close properly

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Lum, Nakamura, Padgett, Hayashi, Wakatsuki

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.