Hawaii lawmakers want the chance to research police misconduct without being told an officer鈥檚 disciplinary file has already been destroyed.

On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee passed a bill that seeks to increase transparency about bad behavior inside Hawaii鈥檚 county police departments by forcing agencies to include more information in annual misconduct reports to the Legislature.

But the committee also amended the measure to force county departments to hold on to fired officers鈥 disciplinary files for at least 18 months after those annual reports are submitted.

The 鈥 introduced by Rep. Karl Rhaods, who chairs the Judiciary Committee 鈥 only called on departments to keep a fired cop鈥檚 file for six months.

鈥淲e wanted to extend it to 18 months,鈥 Rhoads said. 鈥淲e were concerned that if it were only six months long that when the reports come to us we would not be able to review anything.鈥

seeks to shed more light on the misconduct that takes place inside Hawaii鈥檚 four county police departments for forcing those agencies to disclose more information about bad cops.

Each year county police chiefs are required to submit a report the Legislature that provides a brief summary of misconduct incidents and whether an officer was suspended or discharged.

No names are provided, and the reader is often left guessing as to what actually transpired. There鈥檚 also no way to tell if a disciplinary action has been overturned as a result of a union grievance procedure.

But HB 1812 propose to increase the amount of information given to lawmakers in the annual reports. Not only would the bill require better descriptions of the misconduct, but it would also note which incidents constituted criminal conduct and whether an officer was prosecuted.

The bill would also require county police departments to describe whether an officer has appealed a disciplinary action and whether it was still proceeding through a union grievance process.

HB 1812 has a companion bill in the Senate that also passed another legislative hurdle Tuesday. 鈥 introduced by Sen. WIll Espero 鈥 was approved by the Sen. Clayton Hee鈥檚 Judiciary Committee after first passing out of the Senate Public Safety Committee.

The State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers (SHOPO) is the only group to oppose the bills so far.

In written testimony, SHOPO President Tenari Ma鈥檃fala said that providing more details about misconduct could lead to the identification of police officers.

He also said the bills contradict Hawaii鈥檚 public records law, the Uniform Information Practices Act, that states that only the details on discharged officers can be made public.

SHOPO did not oppose the provisions that would force county police departments to identify which incidents were committed by the same officer.

The union also did not oppose saying in the reports whether an officer has fully exhausted the grievance process.

Support for the bill comes from the Society of Professional Journalists Hawaii Chapter and the Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest.

In written testimony SPJ President Stirling Morita blamed the Legislature for making police officers鈥 names secret.

He recounted the story of how the Legislature in 1995 exempted suspended cops from having to reveal details about their misconduct at the behest of SHOPO.

At that time, the union was on the losing end of a legal battle with a group of University of Hawaii journalism students who wanted police disciplinary records.

Morita noted that the Legislature in 1995 required the annual misconduct reports to be submitted as a way to measure whether the secrecy was warranted.

鈥淏ut we wonder how the public and the Legislature can gauge whether the law is having bad results because the summaries of offenses are so bereft of details,鈥 Morita said. 鈥淗ow can anyone get a picture of offenses within a police department with such inadequate descriptions as hindering a federal investigation?鈥

He added that giving the public more detail about the various incidents of misconduct would identify individual officers. Rather he said it would give the public a better handle on whether the police department, its administration and the police commission were providing adequate oversight.

鈥淭his bill does not violate any privacy rights of the individual police officers,鈥 Morita said. 鈥淧lease pass this bill.鈥

Both HB 1812 and SB 2591 were drafted in response to Civil Beat鈥檚 series, In The Name of the Law, that examined police misconduct and the secrecy surrounding it.

Should the bills become law, it would help reverse what has been a decades long trend to cover up police misconduct in the Hawaiian isles.

Civil Beat also recently won a lawsuit that challenged the confidentiality surrounding suspended police officers.

Should that ruling stand it could mean that all suspended and discharged police officers鈥 disciplinary files will be publicly available and the records haven’t been destroyed.

Support Independent, Unbiased News

Civil Beat is a nonprofit, reader-supported newsroom based in 贬补飞补颈驶颈. When you give, your donation is combined with gifts from thousands of your fellow readers, and together you help power the strongest team of investigative journalists in the state.

 

About the Author