������Ƶ

Enough is enough. How many Honolulu Police Department trained officers must be caught lying under oath before we take appropriate action?

For far too long, our criminal justice system and civilian oversight commissions have looked the other way when officers are caught lying under oath or in police reports. After all, what’s a little lie among friends when the result is that a criminal is convicted, or even an innocent person once in a while.

And all too often, even when police are caught lying, the consequences are insignificant. This should neither be tolerated nor treated as an aberration.

Just recently in the criminal trial of Dennis Mitsunaga we learned that retired HPD Major Rudy Alivado admitted he’d lied under oath during Laurel Mau’s civil trial in 2014. Alivado’s false testimony worked in favor of Mitsunaga’s firm and against Mau.

Alivado justified his false testimony because it was only a civil trial, and he only did it to help his friend, Dennis Mitsunaga. Mau lost her civil lawsuit.

Since when is it OK to lie under oath? For any reason? Lying under oath is a crime, period.

Alivado served over 28 years as a police officer. Telling the truth is a fundamental expectation we have of all our law enforcement officers, particularly when it is your position as a law enforcement officer that itself makes you credible to a jury.

Alivado got away with it. And don’t think for a moment he had a sudden revelation. He only told the truth after seven years of staying silent and only when forced to by the special prosecutor and the FBI during its investigation of Mitsunaga’s firm.   

No Loyalty To The Truth

Alivado’s rationale is an example of law enforcement’s culture of loyalty. Not loyalty to the truth, rather loyalty to friends, family and fellow officers at the expense of the truth. This loyalty overrides taking an oath and even the fear of being caught. That is because being caught is so rare, and the punishment likely to be imposed so mild, it’s worth the risk.

In 2014, the same year Alivado was falsely testifying in the Mau civil trial, newly retired Criminal Intelligence Unit Officer Niall Silva lied under oath in the federal criminal case of United States v. Gerard Puana. And Silva didn’t just lie about one fact, his entire trial testimony was false. Silva held firm to his false testimony until he was confronted by the FBI’s indisputable evidence. And, like Alivado, only then did he admit he had lied.

Unlike Alivado, Silva did not walk away scot-free. He was forced to plead guilty to a felony. But because he cooperated and became a “friend” of the prosecution, he was allowed to plead guilty to only one count, and that was to the least serious charge he faced.

At his sentencing hearing, Silva’s attorney argued he should receive a sentence of probation because he had no choice but to commit perjury as he was, after all, only following orders. Despite all he’d done to cover up his false testimony and the extent that he went to breach his position of trust as a police officer, due to his “cooperation” the prosecution also recommended a sentence of probation.  

Thankfully, Senior Judge J. Michael Seabright disagreed. He concluded that even though Silva “came clean,” a sentence of probation would send the “wrong message.” But even then, Judge Seabright only imposed a nine-month prison sentence.

Judge Seabright certainly tried to do the right thing, but under similar circumstances I doubt you or I would receive such a lenient sentencing recommendation from a prosecutor or receive such a low prison term. And that’s the problem. A double standard exists that fosters leniency for law enforcement officers, even when they break the law.

There are, of course, exceptions, like the eight-year prison sentence Louis Kealoha received, but even in that case many thought that sentence was too low given all he’d done to frame an innocent man.

Did law enforcement learn from the Kealoha episode? Apparently not.

A trial is currently pending against four HPD officers accused, in part, of conspiracy and hindering prosecution by falsifying their reports involving their alleged roles in a high-speed chase and crash in Makaha. If the allegations are true, and that is yet to be proven, like the Kealoha case this is a group of officers acting in concert to falsify evidence and keep the truth from coming out to protect one another.  

And who pays the price? We do.

The City and County of Honolulu settled the civil lawsuit filed by Florence and Gerard Puana for $2.8 million. And even though the Makaha car crash trial is still pending, the City and County of Honolulu has already settled one of the victim’s civil lawsuits for $12.5 million.

That’s $14.5 million and counting.

There is hardly a more serious crime that can be committed that so directly undermines the integrity of the judicial process than when officers falsify reports, misrepresent facts or outright lie under oath.

Don’t get me wrong, without question most law enforcement officers do not lie under oath or falsify police reports. But enough do that the public is losing faith and trust in local law enforcement and our courts.

These cases are not isolated incidents. These are not just a few “bad apples.” And when an officer is caught lying under oath, no prosecutor confronts them. No supervisor takes them to task. And judges rarely if ever take independent action.

In fact, the system works against formally reprimanding or disciplining a police officer because all such misconduct must be disclosed to the defense whenever that officer testifies in a future case. So, everyone simply looks the other way. And that sends a wrong message to law enforcement officers.

This is not justice, this is not fair and this is not equal application of the law.

What’s to be done?

First, prosecutors should treat law enforcement officers who falsify reports or lie under oath like they would any other criminal. Second, judges should punish law enforcement officers as they would any other criminal defendant.

Third, the Police Commission and HPD Chief Joe Logan should clarify and enhance disciplinary rules and conduct mandatory training emphasizing that an officer’s duty is first and foremost to the truth and to the community they serve.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the public must continue to stay involved, monitor and pressure elected and appointed law enforcement officials to do their jobs in a fair and impartial manner and hold them accountable when they do not.