Skip to main content

State v. Bridges

Citations

  • 925 P.2d 357
  • 83 Haw. 187

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that wiretap interception made in California in compliance with California law, but not with Hawaiian law, was admissible in Hawaiian court
  • holding that wiretap interception made in California in compliance with California law, but not with Hawaiian law, was admissible in Hawaiian court
  • “the scope of the defendants’ rights, as they might expect to exercise them on a day-to-day basis, is to be found within the realm of [situs] jurisprudence.”
  • \if forum state police set out consciously to evade forum state law ... [s]itus law should not be used to reward such schemes\
  • “In Hawai'i, we have recognized a number of purposes underlying our exclusionary rule: (1) judicial integrity, State v. Pattioay, 78 Hawai'i 455, 468, 896 P.2d 911, 924 (1995
  • police consciously set out to evade law of forum

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Klein, Levinson, Nakayama, Ramil, Crandall, Moon

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

28 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.