D.Haw.: It wasn’t objectively reasonable that def’s bag had been abandoned

It was not objectively reasonable for officers to believe that defendant’s blue bag was abandoned property when it was searched. They didn’t even have a good faith belief it was abandoned, so the motion to suppress is granted. United States v. Taumua, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127559 (D. Haw. June 9, 2026)*:

The next inquiry is whether Officer Nakakuni believed in good faith that the blue bag had been abandoned. For the reasons discussed above and below, he could not possibly have done so. As explained, this inquiry is “confined to the objectively ascertainable question whether a reasonably well-trained officer would have known that the search was illegal in light of all of the circumstances.” Herring, 555 U.S. at 145. Here, to repeat, there are no objective facts suggesting the blue bag had been abandoned. There is also nothing in HPD’s express policy statement on abandonment supporting the concept that the blue bag was abandoned. Notably, the policy states, inter alia, that abandonment must be “overt and positive” and must demonstrate the “voluntary relinquishment of control over property.” Exhibit G at 7, Dkt. No. 40-10. Again, there is simply nothing overt or positive related to the blue bag in this record. It is, thus, unsurprising that Officer Nakakuni testified that he did not follow HPD’s abandonment policy with respect to the blue bag. See 5/12/26 Tr. at 59:13-15.

With no objective facts supporting the idea that the blue bag was abandoned, and with Officer Nakakuni essentially ignoring, or at least not remembering, HPD’s policy on abandonment, the Court finds that a reasonably well-trained officer would have known that the search of the blue bag was illegal in light of all the circumstances of this case. See Herring, 555 U.S. at 145. The Court, thus, finds that there was not a good faith basis to search the blue bag.