������Ƶ

“I think the public’s right to know is a fundamental interest in our society. It is institutionalized, it is constitutionalized, it is an interest of the first priority.”

Those are the words of Hawaii Judge John Lim, who in 1994 sided with University of Hawaii students and ordered the release of police misconduct records.

Lim was convinced — as we are — that the only way to make sure police are not abusing their extraordinary power is to allow the public to scrutinize their actions.

We like to believe that the vast majority of police officers are true professionals who do an outstanding job for the citizens of Hawaii. But the fact is, under the current law, we have no way of knowing for sure.

“How do you exercise your rights against the government unless you know what the government is doing?” Lim asked.

In Hawaii, it’s not possible to know what the police are doing, particularly when it comes to serious misconduct — abuse of power, violence, lying, even criminal behavior.

The Hawaii Legislature gave police officers a special exemption from disclosure under the public records law. Lawmakers did this in 1995 — the year after Lim ruled it should be otherwise — at the urging of Hawaii’s politically powerful police union.

That means we are still being asked to blindly trust the government — in this case the police departments and police commissions — to make sure our police officers are not overstepping their powers when they wield their guns and their badges against ordinary citizens.

Our recently concluded five-part series, In The Name Of The Law, raised the dark curtain that has shielded police misconduct for the past 18 years. Our report demonstrates, in a nutshell, that the government is not doing a very good job of overseeing the police.

Lawmakers were supposed to be keeping an eye on the police through mandated annual summaries. But they are now surprised to learn that, in Honolulu at least, police officers are suspended or discharged about once a week, on average, for a laundry list of bad behavior — domestic violence, falsifying records, abusing prisoners, and more.

Cops are even being convicted of crimes. And still they keep their badges and guns. Suspensions are minimal, a few days at best.

And that’s just what we could tell from the vague summaries that apparently no one has analyzed until now. The real problem is that there is simply no way to know what’s really going on: Who are the officers involved in the misconduct? Is it the same people over and over? Is the discipline effective and a deterrent to others? Why are cops with a criminal record allowed to stay on the force?

The lack of information does a real disservice not only to the public but to the hundreds of police officers who are doing an exemplary job of public service. The culture of secrecy around misconduct casts doubt on the larger force, making the problems seem worse than perhaps they are. The bad guys are making the good guys look bad.

We were told over and over again that the State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers (SHOPO) — the statewide police union — casts a large shadow over the disciplinary process, that the police administration is often handcuffed when it tries to get rid of a bad cop. In fact, our study found that nearly 40 percent of Honolulu police officers who were fired over the past 13 years were reinstated after a lengthy and complex grievance process.

SHOPO insists on secrecy when it comes to police misconduct, arguing that its officers don’t deserve to be humiliated by public disclosure of mistakes made in the heat of the moment. But records show that much of the misconduct is not related to a split-second decision in a life-or-death situation.

Instead, it’s an angry officer using his vehicle to pin his girlfriend up against another car. It’s a drunk officer getting in a wreck then fleeing the scene and then lying about it to investigators. It’s an officer sexually assaulting the woman who has turned to him for help.

These are crimes that everyone — even someone with a badge — should be punished for. The humiliation of facing the public through media coverage or at trial should be a deterrent to others. But hiding it allows it to grow like mold in dark corners.

SHOPO could help ease the public concern over misconduct. But it won’t. Union leaders wouldn’t talk with our reporters for this project.

That arrogance is stunning — they believe their power is absolute and they feel no compulsion to address this important public issue. That’s not so different than in 1994 when the union orchestrated a show of force by 500 cops, many armed and in uniform, to intimidate a few UH journalism students and Judge John Lim in court.

Now the Legislature has an opportunity to push back against that overbearing arrogance, to revisit and carefully consider the words of Judge Lim.

It’s time to repeal the exemption in the public records law that applies only to the police. No other public employee has the same protection from public review of misconduct. With the extraordinary pressure of their jobs and the extraordinary powers they hold, the police — especially the police — shouldn’t either.

Clearly, lawmakers are the only ones who can bring police misconduct out into the open. The police commission says it’s not its job to micromanage the police, the mayor says it’s not his either. The circle is tight.

This session, new leadership in the Legislature is demonstrating its willingness to at least give a fair hearing to issues that for years have been kept buried by influential special interests, SHOPO included.

Police power is a fundamental issue of citizens’ trust in government. It’s time to stand up to SHOPO, to allow the public to exercise its legally recognized right to ensure that power is not being abused.