State v. Bridges

We have consolidated the appeals of Defendants-Appellees Fred Douglas Bridges and Timothy Lamar Bradley. 1 Bridges and Bradley were indicted on charges of Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the First Degree (the promoting charge) and Criminal Conspiracy (to commit the offenses of Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the First Degree and Commercial Promotion of Marijuana in the Second Degree) (the conspiracy charge). Prior to trial, Bradley filed a motion to suppress evidence and a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Bridges subsequently joined in both motions.

The circuit court granted both appellees’ motions to suppress evidence, granted Bradley’s motion to dismiss as to both counts of the indictment, granted Bridges’s motion to dismiss as to the promoting charge, and denied Bridges’s motion to dismiss as to the conspiracy charge. The State of Hawaii (the prosecution) appeals the granting of both appellees’ motions to suppress evidence and the granting of Bradley’s motion to dismiss as to the conspiracy charge. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the order dismissing the conspiracy charge against Bradley, reverse the orders granting the ap-pellees’ motions to suppress evidence, and remand for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

In November 1989, a Honolulu Police Department (HPD) narcotics team led by Detective David Brown and Officer Emilio La-ganse, following a tip from a confidential informant, met with the appellees in an undercover capacity to arrange a drug transaction that would involve heroin, cocaine, and/or marijuana. This initial meeting took place in the State of California, where both appellees resided. Between December 1989 and February 1990, the HPD agents made numerous telephone calls to the appellees in California regarding the transaction.

During one such conversation with Bradley on January 3,1990, Bradley indicated that he *189 wanted to continue the conversation from a different phone. The HPD agents told Bradley that he could call them back collect. Shortly thereafter, Bradley made a collect call from California to Hawaii to resume the conversation regarding the drug transaction. Bradley made no other calls to Hawaii and never set foot in Hawaii during the time period that the conspiracy allegedly took place.

In February 1990, the HPD paid for Bridges to fly to Honolulu to meet the ostensible heroin source 2 and to further discuss the proposed drug transaction with Detective Brown and Officer Laganse. During Bridges’s visit, the HPD agents agreed to provide heroin, marijuana, and cash to the appellees in exchange for cocaine. In addition, the HPD agents made a pre-payment of $1,000 for the cocaine that was to be later provided by the appellees. Finally, the HPD agents and Bridges agreed that the physical exchange of drugs would take place in California.

The HPD subsequently contacted the La Habra Police Department and the Los Ange-les Police Department to coordinate a “sting” operation. As part of the “sting,” Detective Brown and Officer Laganse invited the ap-pellees to Room 236 of the La Habra Best Western Inn on February 27, 1990, to complete the transaction. In preparation for the meeting, Laganse was fitted with a Nagra 3 recording device to record the conversations of the parties within Room 236. In addition, unbeknownst to either Bridges or Bradley, and without their consent, audio and audio-video monitoring equipment was installed in Room 236 by HPD agents.

Before installing the monitoring equipment, the HPD agents had asked the La Habra police to obtain an order from a California court authorizing the installation of the equipment. Detective Brown testified concerning the court order as follows:

Because we weren’t familiar with California law, we told them what we wanted to do and asked them their advice, because we didn’t know if it was legal within the State of California. They informed us that they did not need a Court Order in the State of California to install video equipment.

So I asked them if they would be willing to get a Court Order so we don’t—we don’t have any problems with the future in regards to installing an illegal video, or audio installation.

Although Detective Brown testified that the La Habra police in fact procured such an order, no court order was admitted into evidence. 4

When the appellees met with the HPD agents in Room 236, Detective Brown gave the appellees one pound of heroin and two pounds of marijuana in exchange for 10.6 grams of cocaine and a promise that more would be provided later. As arranged, the La Habra police thereafter stopped the ap-pellees’ vehicle in the Best Western parking lot and arrested the appellees.

The following items were obtained by either the HPD agents or the La Habra police after the appellees were arrested: the marijuana, heroin, and cocaine involved in the transaction; an audio recording from the Na-gra worn by Officer Laganse; an audio-video recording of the transaction; audio-video recordings of statements made by the appellees to the La Habra police after they were arrested; miscellaneous items recovered from the appellees when they were booked; and miscellaneous items recovered from a search of the appellees’ vehicle.

On October 22, 1991, an indictment was filed charging Bridges and Bradley with one count each of Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the First Degree, and one count each of Criminal Conspiracy (to commit the offenses of Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the First Degree and Commercial Promotion of Mari *190 juana in the Second Degree). The appellees were subsequently extradited from California to Hawaii. On August 20, 1992, Bradley filed a motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction and a motion to suppress evidence. On October 19,1992, Bridges filed notices of joinder in both of Bradley’s motions.

Following a hearing, the circuit court entered orders granting Bradley’s motion to dismiss the indictment, granting Bradley’s motion to suppress, granting in part (as to the promoting charge) and denying in part (as to the conspiracy charge) Bridges’s motion to dismiss the indictment, and granting Bridges’s motion to suppress.

Pursuant to Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 641-13 (1998), the prosecution now appeals the orders granting the appellees’ motions to suppress and the portion of the order granting Bradley’s motion to dismiss as it applies to the conspiracy charge; the prosecution does not' challenge the dismissal of the promoting charges against either ap-pellee.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Jurisdiction over Bradley

In the instant case, the prosecution has charged the appellees with conspiracy based in large part upon conduct occurring outside the boundaries of our state. HRS § 701-106 (1993), which “delineates the scope of Hawai'i’s criminal jurisdiction,” State v. Meyers, 72 Haw. 591, 595, 825 P.2d 1062, 1064 (1992), specifically addresses two types of conspiracy charges, stating in pertinent part:

Territorial applicability. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person may be convicted under the law of this State of an offense committed by the person’s own conduct or the conduct of another for which the person is legally accountable if:

[[Image here]]

(c) Conduct occurring outside the State is ■ sufficient under the law of this State to

constitute a conspiracy to commit an offense within the State and an overt act in furtherance of such conspiracy occurs within the State; or

(d) Conduct occurring within the State establishes ... [a] conspiracy to commit[ ] an offense in another jurisdiction which also is an offense under the law of this State[.]

In order to determine which subsection applies to the instant case, we must examine the nature of the conspiracy alleged in the indictment. The conspiracy count of the indictment states in pertinent part:

On or about the 19th day of November, 1989 to and including the 27th day of February, 1990, in the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii[,] FRED DOUGLAS BRIDGES ... and TIMOTHY LAMAR BRADLEY, ... with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of crimes, to wit, Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the First Degree and Commercial Promotion of Marijuana in the Second Degree, did enter into a conspiracy ... by agreeing with each other and with [Detective Brown and Officers Laganse and Nishimura], and persons unknown, ... that they or one or more of them would engage in or solicit the conduct or would cause or solicit the result specified by the definitions of Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the First Degree and Commercial Promotion of Marijuana in the Second Degree in Sections 712-1241(1)(b)(ii)(A) 5 and 712-1249.5(1)(b) 6 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes.

*191 It was part of said conspiracy that Defendants BRIDGES and BRADLEY would knowingly distribute one or more preparations, compounds, mixtures, or substances of an aggregate weight of one-eighth ounce or more containing heroin or salts, isomers, and salts of isomers of heroin and marijuana having an aggregate weight of one pound or more to and with unindicted co-conspirators Brown, Laganse, Nishimu-ra, and persons unknown.

In addition, the indictment alleges eighteen separate overt acts that were allegedly committed “[i]n furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the objects thereof.”

Based on the language of the indictment and the evidence presented at the hearing on the appellees’ motions to dismiss and to suppress evidence, it is clear that the conspiracy charges against the appellees allege that they conspired with each other and/or the HPD agents to distribute heroin and marijuana. See also Memorandum In Opposition To Motion To Dismiss Indictment For Lack Of Jurisdiction, at 5 (“In the instant case both Defendants have been charged with conspiracy to distribute heroin and marijuana (Count II) during the time period from November 19, 1989 to and including February 27, 1990. The purpose or plan of the' conspiracy was to distribute heroin and marijuana.”).

Although not argued by the appellees, we note that the appellees’ receipt of heroin and marijuana from the HPD agents could not have amounted to distribution of heroin and marijuana. In State v. Aluli, 78 Hawai'i 317, 893 P.2d 168 (1995), this court held that “‘to distribute,’ as that term is defined in HRS § 712-1240, does not include ‘to buy 5 or ‘to offer to buy.’” 78 Hawai'i at 323, 893 P.2d at 174. In reaching our decision, we recognized that HRS § 712-1240 (1993) defines “to distribute,” inter alia, as “to ... exchange with another,” and expressly considered that aspect of the definition of “to distribute.” We explained that

all of the other words the legislature used to define “to distribute” (sell, transfer, prescribe, give, deliver, ■ etc.) clearly indicate that the legislature intended to proscribe the supplying or providing of dangerous drugs “to another.” It would be incongruous, then, to construe the legislature’s use of “exchange with another” as indicating its intention to proscribe the purchase or receipt of drugs from another.

Aluli, 78 Hawai'i at 321, 893 P.2d at 172 (citation omitted; emphasis in original). 7 Accordingly, the appellees’ receipt of heroin and marijuana from the HPD agents as part of an exchange of drugs could not constitute distribution of those drugs under HRS § 712-1240. Cf. State v. Rullman, 78 Hawai'i 488, 491, 896 P.2d 944, 947 (App.1995) (“To sell a drug is to transfer it to another for any kind of consideration. To barter a drug is to transfer it to another for a kind of consideration other than money. Thus, bartering a drug is a type of sale; exchanging is similar.”)

Moreover, although the HPD agents clearly distributed heroin and marijuana to the appellees, see supra note 7, the appellees’ agreement merely to receive the heroin and marijuana that was distributed by the HPD agents could not constitute an agreement to distribute heroin and marijuana. As explained in State v. Senteno, 69 Haw. 363, 742 P.2d 369 (1987), an agreement between providers and recipients of drugs is not the equivalent of an agreement between co-con-spirators: “The terms ‘offer or agree’ contained in HRS § 712-1240 defining ‘to distribute’ refer to offers or agreements made with respect to prospective buyers. In con *192 trast, the conspiracy statute (HRS § 705-520) speaks in terms of agreements among co-conspirators.” 69 Haw. at 367, 742 P.2d at 372 (emphases in original). Thus, any agreement by the appellees merely to receive heroin and marijuana from the HPD agents who were distributing the drugs could not constitute an agreement between co-conspirators to distribute heroin and marijuana. 8

On the other hand, the indictment can legitimately be construed as charging the appellees with conspiring with each other and/or the HPD agents to distribute heroin and marijuana to other unidentified persons on the mainland. The overt acts alleged in the indictment contain express references to further distribution of the drugs:

4. On February 6, 1990, an informant, Brown, and Laganse met with Defendant BRIDGES in California and discussed, among other things, the following: heroin and marijuana being delivered to the Defendant Bridges; Defendant BRIDGES’ sending of heroin to Texas and Indianapolis for distribution; prices, quantities, and purity of heroin; Brown giving Defendant BRIDGES two pounds of marijuana as a sample; and future phone calls.

[[Image here]]

6. On February 17, 1990, Defendant BRIDGES met with Nishimura, Brown, and Laganse in Honolulu and discussed the price of heroin, distribution of heroin in various mainland cities, quantities of heroin to be delivered, and arrangements for the upcoming marijuana, heroin, and cocaine deal.

(Emphasis added.) In addition, the amount of heroin (one pound) and marijuana (two pounds) involved is sufficient to support an inference that further distribution of the drugs was contemplated by the appellees. Thus, the question becomes whether the circuit court had jurisdiction over Bradley with respect to the charge that he conspired with Bridges and/or the HPD agents to distribute heroin and marijuana to unidentified persons on the mainland.

HRS § 701—106(1)(c) only applies to “conspiracies] to commit an offense within the State.” A conspiracy to distribute drugs on the mainland is not a conspiracy to commit an offense within Hawai'i. Therefore, HRS § 701-106(1)(c) does not apply.

HRS § 701—106(1)(d), on the other hand, applies to “conspiracies] to commit an offense in another jurisdiction.” This is the applicable subsection to determine whether the circuit court had jurisdiction over Bradley. Under this subsection, jurisdiction exists when “[c]onduct occurring within [Hawai'i] establishes” the conspiracy. HRS § 705-520 (1993) sets forth the conduct elements of a criminal conspiracy as follows:

Criminal conspiracy. A person is guilty of criminal conspiracy if, with intent to promote or facilitate the commission of a crime:

(1) He [or she] agrees with one or more persons that they or one or more of them will engage in or solicit the conduct or will cause or solicit the result specified by the definition of the offense; and

(2) He [or she] or another person with whom he [or she] conspired commits an overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy.

Thus, in order for jurisdiction over Bradley to exist under HRS § 701—106(1)(d), an agreement (by Bradley) and an overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy (committed by Bradley “or another person with whom he conspired”) must have occurred in Hawai'i. See State v. Merino, 81 Hawai'i 198, 213, 915 P.2d 672, 687 (1996).

*193 1. Agreement

There is nothing in the record to indicate when or where Bradley initially agreed with Bridges and/or the HPD agents that one or more of them would distribute the heroin and marijuana on the mainland. However, if Bradley committed an overt act in Hawaii, that overt act would serve to “renew” his agreement in Hawaii. See People v. Pascarella, 92 Ill.App.3d 413, 48 Ill.Dec. 1, 5, 415 N.E.2d 1285, 1289 (1981) (“It is long established that every act in furtherance of a conspiracy is regarded, in law, as a renewal or continuance of the unlawful agreement. The conspiracy is renewed ... at the place where the overt act is done.”). 9

Although Bradley was never physically in Hawaii, he did place a telephone call that was received in Hawai'i. According to State v. Meyers, 72 Haw. 591, 595, 825 P.2d 1062, 1064-65 (1992), “a telephone call constitutes conduct in the jurisdiction in which the call is received.” The telephone conversation concerned the heroin and marijuana dealing. Thus, the telephone call constituted an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy that was “committed” in Hawaii, thereby “renewing” Bradley’s conspiratorial agreement in Hawai'i.

2. Overt Act

As discussed above, in order for jurisdiction to lie under HRS § 701-106(1)(d), both an agreement and the commission of an overt act must have occurred in Hawaii. Moreover, although an overt aet may serve to “renew” the agreement, the commission of a single overt act in Hawaii cannot establish jurisdiction under HRS § 701-106(1)(d). See supra note 9. Thus, although Bradley’s telephone call to the HPD agents in Hawaii constituted an overt act in Hawaii, because that overt act was used to establish the agreement, a separate overt act must have been committed in Hawaii in order for jurisdiction to exist under HRS § 701-106(1)(d).

Aside from the one collect call made to the HPD agents, Bradley placed no other telephone calls that were received in Hawaii and, as noted above, he never set foot in Hawaii during the time period that the conspiracy allegedly took place. Thus, as far as the record reveals, Bradley did not personally commit a second overt act in Hawaii.

HRS § 701-106(1)(d), however, does not require that the defendant personally commit an overt act in Hawaii; it only requires that conduct establishing the conspiracy occur in Hawaii. Moreover, pursuant to HRS § 701-106(1), criminal jurisdiction can be based on the defendant’s “own conduct or the conduct of another for which the person is legally accountable,” and, under HRS § 705-520, a person is guilty of criminal conspiracy if “[h]e [or she] or another person with whom he [or she] conspired commits an overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy.” Thus, an overt act committed in Hawaii by a person with whom Bradley conspired would suffice to establish *194 the overt act required for jurisdiction under HRS § 701-106(1)(d).

The evidence in the record clearly demonstrates that Bridges was a person with whom Bradley had conspired and that Bridges committed at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy in Hawaii when, while in Honolulu, he met with the undercover agents, discussed the drug transaction, and accepted a pre-payment for the cocaine.

Therefore, the circuit court had jurisdiction over Bradley on the charge that he conspired with Bridges and/or the HPD agents to distribute heroin and marijuana to unidentified persons on the mainland. Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court erred in granting Bradley’s motion to dismiss with respect to the conspiracy charge.

B. The suppression issue

The audio/videotaping that was conducted in California by the HPD agents, in conjunction with the La Habra police, apparently violated neither the United States Constitution nor any California law. 10 The circuit court, however, concluded that the audio/videotaping violated HRS § 803-42 and, therefore, granted appellees’ motions to suppress.

The prosecution argues that the circuit court’s orders granting the appellees’ motions to suppress must be vacated because either (1) the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution required the circuit court to admit the evidence, (2) the circuit court erroneously concluded that Hawaii law governed the audio/videotaping that took place in California, or (3) even assuming that Hawaii law governed the audio/videotaping, the search did not violate any Hawaii law.

We agree with the prosecution that, even if the audio/videotaping would have violated HRS § 803—42 or article I, section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution if it had been conducted in Hawaii, because the audio/videotaping was conducted in California in apparent compliance with the United States Constitution and California law, see supra note 10, the circuit court erred in suppressing the evidence. Consequently, we need not decide whether the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution required admission of the evidence or whether the audio/videotaping would have violated HRS § 803-42 or article I, section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution if it had been conducted in Hawaii.

The issue presented in this case—under what circumstances will evidence obtained in one state (the situs state) be suppressed in a criminal prosecution in another state (the forum state)—is novel to this jurisdiction. The issue, however, has been addressed by courts in other jurisdictions, with varying results. See, e.g,, Pooley v. State, 705 P.2d 1293 (Alaska.Ct.App.1985); People v. Mattson, 37 Cal.3d 85, 207 Cal.Rptr. 278, 688 P.2d 887 (1984); People v. Blair, 25 Cal.3d 640, 159 Cal.Rptr. 818, 602 P.2d 738 (1979); People v. Orlosky, 40 Cal.App.3d 935, 115 Cal.Rptr. 598 (1974); People v. Porter, 742 P.2d 922 (Colo.1987); People v. Saiken, 49 Ill.2d 504, 275 N.E.2d 381 (1971); State v. Gallegos, 255 Kan. 382, 874 P.2d 647 (1994); State v. Lucas, 372 N.W.2d 731 (Minn.1985); State v. Davis, 313 Or. 246, 834 P.2d 1008 (1992); Burge v. State, 443 S.W.2d 720 (Tex.Crim.App.1969); see also United States v. Gerena, 667 F.Supp. 911 (D.Conn.1987); State v. Minter, 116 N.J. 269, 561 A.2d 570 (1989). In addition, the issue has been discussed by legal commentators. See, e.g., 1 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment, § 1.5(c) (3d ed. 1996); J. Corr, “Criminal Procedure and the Conflict of Laws,” 73 Geo.L.J. 1217 (1985); M. Morrison, “Choice of Law for Unlawful Searches,” 41 Okla.L.Rev. 579 (1988); W. Theis, “Choice of Law and the Administration of the Exclusionary Rule in Criminal Cases,” 44 Tenn.L.Rev. 1043 (1977); Tullis & Ludlow, “Admissibility of Evidence Seized in Another Jurisdiction: Choice of Law and the Exclusionary Rule,” 10 U.S.F.L.Rev. 67 (1975); see also B. Latzer, “The New Judicial Federalism and Criminal Justice: Two Prob *195 lems and a Response,” 22 Rutgers L.J. 863, 869-84 (1991); G. Neuman, “Conflict of Constitutions? No Thanks: A Response to Professors Brilmayer and Kreimer,” 91 Mich. L.Rev. 939, 944-50 (1993); T. Quigley, “Do Silver Platters Have a Place in State-Federal Relations? Using Illegally Obtained Evidence in Criminal Prosecutions,” 20 Ariz.St. L.J. 285, 321-25 (1988).

The issue has generally been addressed as a type of conflict of laws question. 11 “Conflicts assessments in criminal law have occurred most frequently in eases ... where the court is considering the applicability of an exclusionary rule to evidence obtained through a police search or interrogation of a suspect.” Corr, supra, at 1220 (footnote omitted). These “[e]onflict situations have been analyzed in two ways: conflicts of law analysis and an exclusionary rule analysis.” Quigley, supra, at 321-22 (footnotes omitted).

Under a conflicts of law approach, “courts analyze the issue as if it were a civil case and apply the choice of law method of the forum state to determine whether the law of the forum state or the situs state should be followed, and what sanctions are to be used if the appropriate law is violated.” Porter, 742 P.2d at 925. “The dominant conflicts of law theory is interest analysis, which determines the appropriate law by considering the domicile of the parties, the situs of the transactions, and the interest of the forum in applying its own law.” Latzer, supra, at 873.

On the other hand, “[u]nder an exclusionary rule analysis the court first identifies the principles to be served by the exclusionary rule, and then evaluates how the principles would be served by exclusion.” Quigley, supra, at 322 (footnote omitted).

“Although the eases are fairly rare, the trend appears to be toward using the exclusionary rule analysis.” Id. (footnote omitted). “Both courts and commentators have concluded that it is preferable to use an exclusionary rule analysis rather than the traditional conflicts of law approach to determine the admissibility of evidence in the forum state which is obtained in another jurisdiction.” Porter, 742 P.2d at 925. See, e.g., LaFave, supra, at 151-52; Latzer, supra, at 875 (stating that the exclusionary rule analysis “appears better suited to criminal cases than conflicts of law theories”); Minter, 561 A.2d at 576 (“The better approach, we think, is the exclusionary-rule analysis[.]”); Porter, 742 P.2d at 925 (“We agree that ... an exclusionary rule analysis should be followed.”); Lucas, 372 N.W.2d at 736-37; Mattson, 207 Cal.Rptr. at 282, 688 P.2d at 891; Blair, 159 Cal.Rptr. at 827-28, 602 P.2d at 747-48; Tullis & Ludlow, supra, at 88-91. Because the exclusionary rule analysis fo-cusses specifically on the issues pertaining to conflicts issues in interstate search and seizure cases, we agree that it is the better approach.

The first step in an exclusionary rule analysis is to identify the principles underlying the exclusionary rule. In Hawaii, 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) (“to ensure that evidence illegally obtained by government officials or their agents is not utilized in the administration of criminal justice through the courts”); (2) individual privacy, State v. Lopez, 78 Hawai'i 433, 446, 896 P.2d 889, 902 (1995) (“to protect the privacy rights of our citizens” (emphasis omitted)); and, of course, (3) deterrence, Pattioay, 78 Hawai'i at 468, 896 P.2d at 924 (“to deter illegal police conduct”).

We next consider whether application of the exclusionary rule in this case would sufficiently advance these purposes so as to justify the suppression of the reliable, 12 probative *196 evidence that was obtained by the HPD agents.

1. Judicial Integrity

The “judicial integrity” purpose of the exclusionary rule is essentially that the courts should not place their imprimatur on evidence that was illegally obtained by allowing it to be admitted into evidence in a criminal prosecution. Of course, when evidence is not obtained illegally, “no loss of judicial integrity is implicated in a decision to admit the evidence.” Minter, 561 A.2d at 571. Thus, the question becomes whether the evidence was obtained illegally in the first instance.

As a general rule, the question of whether given conduct is legal is answered by looking to the laws of the jurisdiction in which that conduct was performed, i.e., the situs state. See Gerena, 667 F.Supp. at 919 (“[T]he states generally determine the legality of alleged police conduct through application of the law of the place where the conduct occurred.”); Menefee v. State, 640 P.2d 1381, 1384 (Okla.Crim.App.1982) (“[T]he validity of the appellants’ warrantless arrests, and the ensuing search and seizure are governed by the laws of the [situs state].”); State v. Cooper, 223 Kan. 175, 573 P.2d 1006, 1008 (1977) (“As in arrest we look to the state of search and seizure to determine validity.”); Theis, su-pra, at 1045 (“The courts have had little difficulty in determining that the law of the jurisdiction wherein the conduct took place determines the legality of the conduct.”); see also Blair, 159 Cal.Rptr. at 827-28, 602 P.2d at 747-48; LaFave, supra, at 149.

In the instant case, the evidence was apparently obtained in compliance with the laws of the state of California. See supra note 10. Thus, under the general rule, admitting the evidence obtained in California would not cause a loss of.judicial integrity. 13

Our analysis of judicial integrity is not complete, however, because the question “whether the [forum state] constitution [or laws] limits the powers of state officials even when they act extraterritorially,” Neuman, supra, at 945, must be addressed. See also Latzer, supra, at 878 (“The applicability of state constitutional law, and hence the illegality, may turn on the identity of the agents’ employer or the enforceability of the state constitution beyond the state boundaries. One eannot say that the search was legal or illegal without considering the applicability of the relevant state constitutions.”).

Professor Theis has suggested that, in all eases, “[s]tate agents are ... bound ... by state law when they operate outside their *197 state.” Theis, supra, at 1049. We agree that whether agents of the forum state participated in a search or seizure in the situs state is a relevant consideration in determining whether the exclusionary rule mandates suppression of any evidence so obtained. See infra § II.B.3 (discussing forum state agents’ participation in the context of the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule). In addition, there is no doubt that every state has the authority to proscribe the conduct of its agents when they act in their official capacity, even when the agents act in another state. However, we note that according to HRS § 1-4 (“Persons and property subject to laws”), “[t]he laws are obligatory upon all persons and property within the jurisdiction of the State.” It follows that persons and property not within the jurisdiction of Hawai'i are generally not subject to the laws of Hawai'i. Thus, unless there is some Hawai'i law that has been made explicitly applicable to the conduct of agents of the state of Hawai'i when acting outside of the state, we do not believe that the laws of Hawai'i should be considered in deciding the question of whether the evidence was illegally obtained.

In this context, we first consider whether the Hawai'i statutes relating to electronic eavesdropping, HRS eh. 803, part IV, were intended to have extraterritorial effect. Our review of the language of HRS chapter 803, part IV, and its legislative history, has revealed no indication that the statutes were intended to have extraterritorial effect. Similarly, we have found nothing in the language or legislative history of article I, section 7 of the Hawai'i Constitution to suggest that it was intended to have extraterritorial effect. Therefore, we conclude that the provisions of HRS chapter 803, part IV, and article I, section 7 of the Hawai'i Constitution are not relevant to the question of the legality of the electronic eavesdropping activities that were conducted in La Habra, California.

Accordingly, because the evidence at issue was apparently obtained in compliance with California law and because no relevant Ha-wai'i law applies extraterritorially to the conduct of its agents, we conclude that admitting the evidence in the instant case would not tarnish the integrity of the courts.

2. Individual Privacy

As noted above, one of the primary purposes of our exclusionary rule is the protection of individual privacy. See Lopez, 78 Hawai'i at 446, 896 P.2d at 902. Among the cases that we cited in Lopez in support of our departure from the federal rationale of the exclusionary rule were two decisions of the Oregon Supreme Court, including State v. Davis, 313 Or. 246, 834 P.2d 1008 (1992).

. In Davis, the Supreme Court of Oregon held:

This court has declared that evidence is suppressed for violations of the Oregon Constitution “to preserve * * * rights to the same extent as if the government’s officers had stayed within the law.” In the context of a criminal prosecution, the focus then is on protecting the individual’s rights vis-a-vis the government, not on deterring or punishing the excessive conduct of any particular governmental actor, local or otherwise.

This focus on individual protection under the exclusionary rule, a rule that operates to vindicate a constitutional right in the courts, supports the constitutional rule that we announce here: If the government seeks to rely on evidence in an Oregon criminal prosecution, that evidence must have been obtained in a manner that comports with the protections given to the individual by Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. It does not matter where that evidence was obtained (in-state or out-of-state), or what governmental entity (local, state, federal, or out-of-state) obtained it; the constitutionally significant fact is that the Oregon government seeks to use the evidence in an Oregon criminal prosecution. Where that is true, the Oregon constitutional protections apply.

834 P.2d at 1012-13 (citations omitted) (emphases in original).

Although, like the Oregon Supreme Court, we have held that our exclusionary rule serves purposes beyond mere deterrence, we cannot agree that application of our exclusionary rule to evidence that was obtained in *198 a manner that would have violated Hawaii law had it been obtained in Hawaii, no matter where or by whom it was obtained, will— in all cases—serve “to protect the privacy rights of our citizens.” Lopez, 78 Hawai'i at 446, 896 P.2d at 902 (emphasis omitted).