Eighteen years ago former Hawaii Gov. Ben Cayetano let bad cops off the hook when he allowed county police officers who got in trouble to remain anonymous.

Back then he said he was torn by his decision. But now he says granting that secrecy was a mistake.

His trust in the system of checks and balances has eroded over the past two decades.

鈥淭he reason I changed my mind is that during the last 10 years in particular there have been some actions by the police commission that seem very political,鈥� Cayetano said, referring to the seven-member board that oversees the Honolulu Police Department. 鈥淚deally the commission, if it did its job, would be sufficient to me. As it turns out these commissions are only as good as the people who are appointed.鈥�

Cayetano is not alone in concluding that keeping police misconduct records secret may have been a bad idea. Former legislators, government watchdogs and even cops say hiding this information has led to problems.

State Sen. Les Ihara is already making an effort to tighten up that one reporting requirement. He drafted earlier this year after discussing the issue with Civil Beat during interviews. The measure has passed the full Senate and is awaiting a hearing in the House.

But others say Ihara鈥檚 measure may not go far enough.

鈥淎ll issues in terms of the bill are on the table,鈥� said Sen. Will Espero, who chairs the Senate Public Safety Committee. 鈥淚n terms of what鈥檚 reported, when it鈥檚 reported, names, I think it鈥檚 all up for discussion.”

Civil Beat analyzed Honolulu Police Department misconduct summaries over a 13-year period. Police officers are suspended or discharged about once a week on average, a rate that is troubling to lawmakers and others. Few are fired, even if they鈥檝e been convicted of a crime.

Lawmakers overwhelmingly passed the public records exemption thinking that police misconduct would be rigorously scrutinized by other entities 鈥� the county police commissions, the county prosecutors offices, even the police departments themselves.

But police commissions only investigate citizen complaints against officers, not the more serious misconduct that occurs regularly. And their deliberations and decision-making also is done out of public view.

Prosecutors rarely pursue independent action against police officers. They take the cases sent to them by the department, but that鈥檚 about it.

Cayetano says now he was especially troubled by the 鈥檚 2009 decision not to reappoint Boisse Correa as police chief. Correa had for the most part received high marks in his annual evaluations from the commission and was credited with bringing Honolulu鈥檚 crime rate to its lowest in 34 years.

But Correa had a frosty relationship with the state鈥檚 politically powerful police union. Work-weeks for officers became longer, which cut into their ability to work special assignments and earn more pay. His strict disciplinary policies in the ranks. His approach was to crack down soon and hard on offenders.

The (SHOPO) successfully lobbied the police commission to get rid of Correa, which it did with a unanimous 7-0 decision made behind closed doors.

Police commissioners then and now say the decision to remove Correa and replace him with current Honolulu Police Chief Louis Kealoha had nothing to do with union politicking.

Transparency Can Head Off Problems

The public records law requires disclosure of all other public employees鈥� disciplinary actions 30 days after they are suspended or discharged for misconduct. County police have the only exemption.

Honolulu Ethics Commission Executive Director Chuck Totto says identifying people who violate ethics rules potentially deflects future wrongdoing.

Public exposure for violating rules generally makes people think twice about doing something wrong, and it can educate others who may not have realized an action was inappropriate. Shame and embarrassment are strong deterrents, Totto said.

鈥淭he public deserves to know what their public officers are doing, whether it鈥檚 a police officer, a janitor, a council member or whoever,鈥� Totto said.

鈥淚f there鈥檚 misconduct going on it鈥檚 important that the public understands two things. One is who is acting against the law, and number two, which agency is making sure that they鈥檙e trying to control that type of misconduct.鈥�

But trouble in the ranks has been persistent.

HPD鈥檚 last two police chiefs have publicly denounced wrongdoing in their department after officers were arrested. They tried to beef up oversight efforts internally, but didn鈥檛 propose revisiting the public disclosure exemption, something Correa now says should be done.

In 2007, Correa asked for funding to to the internal affairs division. This was after a federal investigation netted five police officers for protecting an illegal cockfighting ring.

鈥淚 do not want our officers to be sent off to the federal penitentiary,鈥� Correa is quoted as saying in a 2007 Honolulu Star-Bulletin editorial. 鈥淲hen they slip, we want to catch it early. If they have problems, we want to know about problems to prevent them from escalating to a different level.鈥�

HPD’s Professional Standards Office 鈥� formerly internal affairs 鈥� has 12 investigators dedicated to handling misconduct. Their nearly $800,000 in salaries make up a tiny fraction of HPD’s more than $200 million budget.

Kealoha, whose been chief since 2009, echoed the sentiments three years later when five officers were arrested on suspicion of crimes ranging from shoplifting to domestic violence in just a four-month period.

Earlier that year, an officer was indicted for allegedly assaulting a Waikiki prostitute and another cop was accused of driving drunk and hitting a 61-year-old woman in a crosswalk.

But in December 2010, when an officer was charged with shoplifting food, Kealoha announced that he wanted to reinforce 鈥渢he importance of making good personal decisions.鈥�

鈥淭his arrest as well as the recent arrests of our officers is unacceptable,鈥� Kealoha told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. 鈥淚t erodes the public鈥檚 interest in an otherwise great police organization.鈥�

Changing Their Minds

What steps Kealoha has taken to ensure his officers make good decisions and whether that鈥檚 worked isn鈥檛 clear. The chief wouldn鈥檛 talk to Civil Beat for this series, and the annual summaries filed with the Legislature don鈥檛 show a drop in misconduct or disciplinary actions on his watch.

Former state Rep. Annelle Amaral is another one who thinks the 1995 exemption from public disclosure 鈥� which she voted for 鈥� was a mistake. Her change of heart is even more interesting because she鈥檚 a former patrol officer.

鈥淚 guess part of the angst that comes with being a cop is seeing just how much you put on the line every day and what it takes out of you and then how severe punishment is for police officers,鈥� Amaral told Civil Beat. 鈥淚t seems disproportionate for the kind of pressure that officers are under. But now I鈥檓 64 years old and I think people should be held accountable for their behavior.鈥�

Ihara is another senator who voted for the measure in 1995. It was his first term in the Senate and he says now he didn鈥檛 pay much attention.

“I wasn’t involved in the issue at the time,” Ihara said. “My good government type efforts started a few years later. I was just getting my feet wet and learning the ropes and focusing on whatever issues I was focused on then so I didn’t really track this bill.”

Over the years, Ihara has made government accountability and transparency his focus as a lawmaker. This session he鈥檚 supporting several measures that aim to improve public integrity and ethics in government, including campaign and financial interests disclosure.

SB 839, which has moved quietly through the Senate, would in essence close a loophole in the 1995 law that required police agencies to file annual summaries. Now, the law simply says annual summaries must be filed 20 days before the legislative session begins.

The reports have generally been submitted in mid-December but, because they don鈥檛 include dates of misconduct, it鈥檚 not possible to tell whether they are up to date through the end of the year and whether all incidents are being tracked.

Ihara鈥檚 bill makes clear the summaries are to cover the full calendar year.

The bill also calls for more detailed descriptions of the types of misconduct officers are getting punished for because the current information is 鈥渋nsufficient for the purposes of public accountability.鈥�

But the bill doesn鈥檛 layout specifically what information should be included.

And it reiterates that officers鈥� identities will be protected.

鈥淚t鈥檚 to provide more information to allow the Legislature to have a better assessment of how the exemption is going,鈥� Ihara said. 鈥淎nd it鈥檚 to allow some increased accountability without changing the whole thing.鈥�

But the bill does provide a vehicle for greater change if lawmakers want to toughen the disclosure for police.

Sen. Will Espero, who chairs the Public Safety, Intergovernmental and Military Affairs Committee, calls SB 839 little more than a 鈥渉ousekeeping鈥� measure. But he says it could become more significant as it works it way through the Legislature.

Moving Quietly So Far

The bill passed Espero鈥檚 committee with little fanfare or public notice. But, he says, the discussion isn鈥檛 over.

鈥淭his is a process that鈥檚 a three- to four-month process and if we can come up with a bill that both houses agree with and even where stakeholders are in agreement then we鈥檒l press forward,鈥� he said. 鈥淏ut at this stage I think there are possibilities with the measure.鈥�

Espero said he hopes lawmakers will want to have a full-blown debate on the matter as the session moves forward.

Espero has been concerned about police misconduct for awhile now.

A couple years ago, Espero said, he started noticing news stories about bad cops popping up more regularly in the local media. In 2011, police officers had been indicted on extortion charges, convicted of sexual assault and jailed for running over pedestrians while drunk.

Espero started collecting the news clippings last year. He keeps them in a yellow folder, arms-length away on his desk.

鈥淔rom my perspective it did appear to be too much because these are law enforcement officers and the public puts our trust and our faith in their hands,鈥� Espero said. 鈥淭he fact that these individuals are carrying guns and have a large amount of perceived authority and power it鈥檚 important that we have the most qualified individuals in these positions.鈥�

SB 839 is before the House Public Safety, Intergovernmental and Military Affairs Committee, chaired by Rep. Henry Aquino. He’s not yet scheduled it for a hearing, but promises to give it due consideration. He also said he’ll be open to amendments.

So far, SB 839 has not drawn a public reaction from SHOPO or police officials. That’s much different than the intensive lobbying effort the union and its supporters made in 1995 to win the exemption.

SHOPO leaders have not responded to repeated attempts to talk with them for this series.

The only testimony on SB 839 has come from two media organizations 鈥� the Society of Professional Journalists Hawaii Chapter and the Media Council Hawaii.

鈥淚t is said that democracy dies behind closed doors!鈥� Media Council Hawaii President Chris Conybeare said in written testimony. 鈥淲hile we support the men and women who serve in our police forces, we also feel that nowhere is transparency more important than with those who have police power.鈥�

Former police chief Boisse Correa has seen first-hand how important it is to keep a tight rein on police.

鈥淥fficers have so much authority and so much discretion,鈥� Correa said. 鈥淭he officers have to know that somebody鈥檚 going to be watching over them.鈥�

Correa blames the union鈥檚 manipulation of the state public record law for hiding much of the misconduct that takes place at HPD. While he believes small offenses, such as turning in a mileage form late, needn鈥檛 be disclosed, the more serious misconduct, particularly criminal matters, should be made public.

The annual reports to the Legislature don鈥檛 cut it, he said. Summaries don鈥檛 tell the whole story of what really took place. At the same time, Correa says police administrators are handcuffed by the union and the public records law.

鈥淭he public has a right to know what we do,鈥� Correa said. 鈥淎nd the stuff we鈥檙e giving to the Legislature doesn鈥檛 paint a fair picture. We need transparency.鈥�

The post In The Name Of The Law: Should Police Misconduct Be Public? appeared first on 天美视频.

On a Wednesday just before Christmas, Chief Louis Kealoha addressed the .

The police commission meets twice a month, its primary role to watch over the police department, keep track of the police chief and hear citizen complaints.

But on Dec. 5, the Honolulu chief didn鈥檛 update the commission in open session on conduct in his department, pending investigations or any disciplinary actions taken against officers.

Instead, Kealoha sat at a conference table inside HPD headquarters, flanked by other uniformed officers, and touted an upcoming holiday event that he was especially proud of.

鈥淪hop with a Cop鈥� is a program designed to serve underprivileged children during the holidays. Police officers take a child to buy gifts they normally can鈥檛 afford, often using their own cash to help the kids out. It鈥檚 an effective community outreach program for departments across the country.

What Kealoha didn鈥檛 talk about were the three officers listed on the agenda who needed legal representation from the city because they were being sued in federal court. Kealoha didn鈥檛 offer any details and the commission didn鈥檛 ask for any.

Any members of the public at the meeting also were left to wonder about the six citizen complaints lodged against HPD officers and listed on the agenda only by case number.

Kealoha did take a few minutes to tell the commission about a letter from an Arizona couple thanking HPD for helping them out while they were vacationing on Oahu.

A few minutes later, Commission Chairman Marc Tilker ended the public portion of the meeting. The only members of the public present were a Civil Beat reporter, editor and videographer. The journalists left and they closed the door.

Inside the room, the commissioners took up Chief Kealoha鈥檚 annual performance review and the six citizen complaints 鈥� conduct unbecoming an officer, overbearing conduct, mistreatment of prisoners and threats.

The Commission Is Not What It Seems

The Honolulu, Maui, Hawaii and Kauai police commissions were created to watch over law enforcement, but their oversight powers are limited by the county charters that created them. They can’t fire a cop, other than the police chief. They can make suggestions but they can only review policies and practices of police agencies, but not put new ones in place.

The commissions only handle citizen complaints. The most serious misconduct, such as that involving crime, is typically handled in-house by a department鈥檚 internal affairs division, which closely guards the results of its investigations. From there it鈥檚 up to the prosecutors, who rely on information fed to them by the police. They don鈥檛 provide independent oversight of police.

Police commission proceedings, too, are shrouded in secrecy. Meetings take place largely behind closed doors and detailed information about misconduct investigations 鈥� even when wrongdoing is substantiated 鈥� isn鈥檛 made public. There鈥檚 no way for the public to judge for themselves if the police are being held accountable.

Tilker is unapologetic about the system of checks and balances. He鈥檚 been with the Honolulu Police Commission for the past four and half years, and when he sees that only 12 HPD officers out of nearly 2,000 have been discharged over the past 13 years he sees a clean department.

鈥淲e鈥檙e a safe, big city,鈥� Tilker said.

But he鈥檚 not interested in taking his job any further 鈥� looking more closely at whether HPD is correctly and effectively addressing misconduct. Should more than 12 officers have lost their jobs in the past 13 years? That鈥檚 not his question to answer.

Tilker says it鈥檚 not the job of the commissioners to micro-manage the department. They put their trust in Kealoha, who Tilker says reports on disciplinary actions taken against officers during executive sessions. But Tilker won鈥檛 disclose what鈥檚 discussed in those conversations.

Kealoha refused to be interviewed for this series of stories on police misconduct and disciplinary records. He backed out on a meeting with Civil Beat in mid-February.

But Tilker believes it鈥檚 the citizen commission that has the power.

鈥淚’ll tell you why we have the ultimate control,鈥� Tilker said. 鈥淏ecause we hire and fire the chief. The chief has four stars and we have five.鈥�

County police commissions are made up of volunteers appointed by the mayors. In Honolulu, the seven police commissioners include business and community leaders:

Max Sword, vice president of industry relations for Outrigger Enterprises Group; Cha Thompson, president of Tihati Productions and Ron Taketa, the treasurer of the Hawaii Carpenters Union.

Eddie Flores Jr., president and CEO of L&L Drive-Inn; Louella Costales, sales leader for Holiday Retirement; Helen Hamada, graphic designer and former Hawaii Government Employees Association president.

Tilker is president and CEO of Marathon Group, a financial management company, and acts as spokesman for the commission. Other commissioners contacted by Civil Beat referred questions to him.

But if, as Tilker asserts, the commission鈥檚 main job is to oversee the police chief, there are few details available to help the public see how that is handled. As with misconduct cases, much of its relationship with the chief is conducted out of the sight of the public.

The Honolulu Police Commission recently gave Kealoha high marks 鈥� a 4.1 out of 5 鈥� in areas such as leadership, community relations and managerial skills. Tilker, who helped hire Kealoha to his first five-year term in 2009, even praised him in a press release.

鈥淭he Commission has observed the Chief develop into a confident and effective leader as his experience addressing the complexities of heading one of the 20 largest police departments in the Nation increase,鈥� Tilker said in the statement. 鈥淭he Chief clearly remains enthusiastically dedicated and focused on enhancing the quality of life in our communities through creating the safest possible environment.鈥�

But looking at the evaluation form, the metrics are hard to decipher. When it came to management of the department, which includes handling officer discipline, the commission gave Kealoha a 4.0 out of 5, with no explanation as to why. Some of the categories they judged him on included whether he 鈥渋mposes disciplinary actions within the written standards of conduct鈥� and 鈥渋mposes disciplinary actions within the requirements of the applicable collective bargaining agreements & laws.鈥�

The Honolulu Police Commission also releases an annual report that says little about misconduct within the department. The commission鈥檚 latest report, , shows 111 decisions on complaints with 16 classified as 鈥渟ustained.鈥�

According to the report, some of the allegations in those complaints included conduct unbecoming an officer, dereliction of duty, harassment, overbearing conduct, profanity and solicitation. There鈥檚 no description of the incidents or anything that notes whether the officers were punished or forced to undergo remedial training for their actions.

The report also notes that 20 cases were referred to the ‘s Professional Standards Office. What those were about or what happened to them afterward is unknown.

Lack Of Transparency Is Historic

鈥淭he police commission is a pretty feckless group so I wouldn鈥檛 put a lot of faith in them,鈥� says University of Hawaii journalism professor Gerald Kato. 鈥淵ou never know what they鈥檙e doing. Their big thing is just hiring the police chief and doing their annual review, which is pretty much secret.鈥�

Kato was at the center of a legal fight to gain access to police disciplinary records in Hawaii. His college journalism students convinced the Hawaii Supreme Court they should be public only to have the Legislature change the law at the behest of the state鈥檚 politically influential police union, the (SHOPO).

In 1995, SHOPO won an exemption from public records law for county police officers at the Legislature. The union argued that disciplinary actions against cops should remain confidential because groups like the county police commissions and internal affairs divisions of each department already provided adequate oversight.

Kato doesn鈥檛 remember the police commission taking a strong position in that very public debate.

鈥淓ven when this thing was happening they were sort of there, but not there,鈥� Kato said. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 think they ever came up as a force to be reckoned with one way or the other.鈥�

The Honolulu Police Commission is no stranger to controversy. In 1979, the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii protested the secrecy surrounding the commission鈥檚 handling of misconduct complaints. The following year ACLU teamed with several other groups in hopes of creating more transparency.

At the time, there was a push to get then-FBI Director William Webster and then-U.S. Attorney for Hawaii Walter Heen to investigate what was considered a pattern of civil rights violations by HPD.

The Honolulu Police Commission supported a federal investigation, but only after the ACLU held a press conference announcing that it had requested that the feds step in after two people died while being arrested on minor charges.

The word 鈥渟ecrecy鈥� became attached to the Honolulu Police Commission in news reports and other public forums. Some members of the Honolulu City Council even expressed their concerns about the veil surrounding the commission and its proceedings. One council member called the commission 鈥淗onolulu鈥檚 most closely guarded secret.鈥�

But, like every effort to shed more light on police misconduct, concerns for the privacy of the officers accused of wrongdoing stymied reform.

鈥淭he concern of protecting the reputations of police officers is a good concern,鈥� former Honolulu City Council Member Welcome Fawcett told the Honolulu Star-Bulletin in 1983. 鈥淏ut there鈥檚 been so much concern there that I get the feeling it鈥檚 getting in the way of protecting citizens.鈥�

Some, like Kato, insist that more transparency would undoubtedly lead to less corruption because it would expose officers who were found to have broken the rules.

But others question the point.

Honolulu attorney Michael Green says he鈥檚 represented scores of police officers accused of crimes. He was also hired by SHOPO in the mid-鈥�90s to help keep police disciplinary records from being released to Kato鈥檚 UH journalism students.

鈥淯nless you live in a little town that has three cops you鈥檙e never going to have a perfect system,鈥� Green said. 鈥淭here鈥檚 corruption slash misconduct in every department in the country. It just depends on to what extent it is. It also deals with how aggressive the department is in retraining and getting rid of the bad ones.鈥�

If Not The Police Commission, Then Who Does Watch Over The Police?

In Hawaii it鈥檚 tough tell how good a job police agencies are doing at dealing with 鈥渢he bad ones.鈥� Police officials won鈥檛 reveal much information, citing privacy concerns and the public records exemption.

Civil Beat鈥檚 analysis of HPD data found that nearly 40 percent of HPD officers who are fired for misconduct get their jobs back. Civil Beat鈥檚 investigation also found that dozens of officers who were convicted of crimes have been allowed to stay on the force.

Federal and county prosecutors can go after bad cops, but they also acknowledge that for the most part they don鈥檛 conduct independent investigations. They take the cases brought to them by the police departments.

“My perspective is not to address the grievance process, that’s a civil matter, that’s a union matter, that’s an internal matter,” says Honolulu Prosecutor Keith Kaneshiro. “My involvement is the criminal process. If there’s a crime alleged and we prosecute based on the crime and the evidence that’s all we do. The crimes.

鈥淲e don’t get involved in a public policy issue of release of names, or stuff like that. We’re involved in whether there’s criminal prosecution.”

Once charges are filed, the public can find information about the alleged crimes in court records. SHOPO has argued that this was enough to expose bad cops.

But not all cases that are forwarded to the prosecutor鈥檚 office result in charges. And not all cases are even forwarded to the prosecutor to begin with.

Civil Beat found that HPD officers committed 111 criminal acts, according to information in the annual misconduct report filed with the Legislature. There鈥檚 no information on how many or which cases were actually turned over for prosecution.

County prosecutors in Honolulu, Maui, Kauai and on the Big Island say they don鈥檛 track or keep a record of prosecutions of police officers.

Still, Kaneshiro says he believes it鈥檚 important to aggressively pursue cases against cops if the evidence is there.

鈥淲e do look at police cases and we look at them seriously,鈥� he said. 鈥淭he reason why is once the public loses trust in the integrity of the prosecutor鈥檚 office or the police department, law enforcement suffers all over the place. If people are there to enforce the law but they don鈥檛 follow the law then the community will not have any faith in the system.鈥�

Kaneshiro pointed to the case of Scott Valdez, an HPD officer who in September 2010 was accused of assaulting a 17-year-old motorist on H-1 who鈥檇 made an obscene gesture at him. Kaneshiro said he vigorously prosecuted Valdez, taking the case to trial twice. But charges were eventually dismissed after neither jury could come to a decision.

Kanehshiro took on a group of officers who had falsified drunken-driving police reports in an attempt to get more overtime pay. Former Mayor Peter Carlisle initially charged this case while he was the county prosecutor but was unsuccessful in getting a conviction.

In the end, several of the officers whose cases had previously been dismissed to tampering with a government record. Part of the deal for the pleas, however, included a guarantee that if the officers stayed out of trouble for three to six months the crime would be expunged from their records.

Beyond a check on the extraordinary power of the police over ordinary citizens, the public has other reasons to be interested in how police misconduct is being handled.

In the case of the officers who falsified the DUI reports, the prosecutors office had to dismiss more than 200 cases. The Honolulu Police Department would not say whether any of those officers were suspended for the action. None were discharged.

Honolulu also regularly pays for police misconduct through settlements and lawsuits filed against the city by victims. The true extent of that public cost 鈥� potentially millions of dollars 鈥� is hard to calculate though.

Civil Beat filed a public records request with city attorneys six months ago for information on lawsuits, settlements and claims involving police officers. The Corporation Counsel鈥檚 office asked us to narrow our request to just the past five years but has yet to produce any information.

Union Contract Controls How Misconduct Is Handled

Civil Beat has repeatedly asked SHOPO leaders to talk with us for this story. They have refused to return numerous calls left with the union鈥檚 spokeswoman and other representatives.

But the 92-page contract describes in detail how the disciplinary process plays out.

The SHOPO contract dictates multi-layered disciplinary process that critics say handcuffs police administrators who are trying to weed out bad cops. The contract puts a premium on confidentiality, including a provision that states that all disciplinary matters, including investigations, shall remain secret.

Commentary in the contract also notes that this confidentiality clause 鈥渕ay conflict鈥� with Hawaii鈥檚 public records and 鈥渕ay be subject to legal challenge.鈥�

That鈥檚 the union鈥檚 nod to a 1996 Hawaii Supreme Court ruling that rejected SHOPO鈥檚 argument that its contract takes precedence over the state鈥檚 public records law. The high court ordered disciplinary files released to UH journalism students, but by then SHOPO had won an exemption to the law from the Legislature.

Through the bargaining process, SHOPO got its members a strong grievance procedure that effectively gives officers up to four opportunities to appeal a disciplinary ruling. The grievance and discipline processes are some of the most detailed segments of SHOPO鈥檚 collective bargaining agreement. Only pay, benefits and other issues of compensation are treated more explicitly.

Disciplinary action can be taken by the chief or a supervisor.

Under the contract, a department administrator can overturn a disciplinary action. The next appeal is to the police chief then the city鈥檚 human resources department and ultimately an independent arbitrator.

Critics say the SHOPO contract and it鈥檚 burdensome disciplinary process discourages HPD and the other departments from more rigorous pursuit of misconduct. It allows bad cops to keep their jobs even if there鈥檚 been serious wrongdoing, like domestic violence or assaulting a co-worker, they say.

鈥淏asically the grievance procedure has become this kind of process for keeping people on the force who everybody knows shouldn鈥檛 be there,鈥� Kato said. 鈥淵ou should try to get rid of people who are doing dishonor to the force. And I鈥檓 sure the union thinks all for one, one for all.鈥�

But HPD Capt. Andrew Lum says his department does the best it can when it comes to handling misconduct in the ranks. He acknowledges SHOPO has a significant influence in the process.

鈥淭hat鈥檚 part of the challenge in discipline in general,鈥� Lum said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not administered one-sided. What the department decides is not the final action.鈥�

For instance, the police chief can discharge an officer for misconduct, but that doesn鈥檛 mean that individual will lose their job. While an officer might be put on leave or reassigned to a desk job, Lum said the appeals process can take years to go through and result in that officer keeping their badge.

He also noted that the more severe the disciplinary action, the more likely it is the department will see an appeal. Sometimes, he said, bad cops will get to keep their jobs.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 think we look at SHOPO as a hindrance or a thorn,鈥� Lum said. 鈥淵ou have to respect the fact that there is representation for the employees.鈥�

Honolulu attorney Eric Seitz considers SHOPO鈥檚 power over the police administration to be a significant problem. As a plaintiffs鈥� attorney, he frequently brings cases against the HPD and its officers. He says the same kind of problems crop up consistently 鈥� suspects being detained longer than the law allows, for instance. Rather than being stopped by the administration through discipline, it鈥檚 allowed to continue, he says.

鈥淚t is a big department, but they have a culture of not addressing these things unless they鈥檙e told to do so,鈥� Seitz said. 鈥淎nd I think one of the reasons is SHOPO intimidates the hell out of them.鈥�

In October 2000, then-HPD officer Clyde Arakawa hit and killed 19-year-old Dana Ambrose while he was driving drunk. During trial it was revealed that Arakawa had previously been found drunk and passed out in a Kailua home in 1992.

Seitz took the case to federal court where he prevailed. Although there was no monetary award, the settlement agreement forced HPD to improve its policies on alcohol abuse. At the time of the 2004 settlement, HPD鈥檚 substance abuse policy didn鈥檛 include alcohol.

鈥淚t took a lawsuit to do that,鈥� Seitz said. 鈥淯ntil and unless that happens they鈥檙e going to minimize these things.鈥�

Read SHOPO’s contract here:

The post In The Name Of The Law: What The Police Commission Isn’t Doing About Misconduct appeared first on 天美视频.

Even before Hawaii Circuit Court Judge John Lim unequivocally championed the public interest in police disciplinary actions and ruled against the State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers, SHOPO had a Plan B 鈥� get the Legislature to do what the courts would not.

had reason to believe this would work 鈥� and it did. Hawaii is a union-friendly state, and the police had recently convinced lawmakers to narrow public disclosure of misconduct to officers whose transgressions occurred while they were on-duty.

Cops are different from other people, the union argued. Stress and high-pressure situations force snap decisions that sometimes result in a mistake, and officers and their families shouldn鈥檛 be publicly humiliated in addition to whatever discipline the department hands down, SHOPO said.

In 1995, the Legislature voted overwhelmingly in SHOPO’s favor. Police disciplinary records would be off limits to the public, but the county police agencies would have to file annual summaries with the Legislature so lawmakers could be assured serious misconduct was being dealt with effectively.

The police union and its membership made keeping this information secret a priority for the 1995 legislative session.

The fight over police officers鈥� disciplinary records 鈥渉as brought this union from the ashes into an activist group,鈥� Michael Joy, SHOPO鈥檚 business manager, said in a press release issued the day 500 officers rallied at the state courthouse to protest the case in which Lim was ruling.

鈥淲e will no longer permit our rights to be trampled or compromised,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e need to let the public and our political leaders know which issues are important to our police officers. SHOPO will begin to take a very active role in politics and do whatever needs to be done to elect our friends into office.鈥�

SHOPO may have failed to convince Hawaii鈥檚 judges that the records should be off limits. But the Hawaii Legislature was a much easier sell.

鈥淲e won, and it was nice for awhile,鈥� said Jeff Portnoy, the Honolulu attorney who represented University of Hawaii journalism students in their quest to keep police disciplinary files public.

鈥淏ut as I had always predicted, we might wind up with a Pyrrhic victory because the cops made it clear that they had the power and the resources and the money and the professionals to walk across the street to the Legislature and get their pals over there to change the law.鈥�

Gerald Kato, the UH journalism professor who was the advisor to the students, said the police union had provided his pupils 鈥渁 good lesson in lobbying.鈥�

鈥淪HOPO just outgunned us politically,鈥� Kato said. 鈥淲e just didn鈥檛 have any kind of political clout.鈥�

Civil Beat tried numerous times over the past six months to interview SHOPO officials. None would agree to an interview and didn’t return more recent calls asking them to speak with us.

Badges And 鈥楽carlet Letters鈥�

On Jan. 18, 1995, while SHOPO鈥檚 appeal of Judge Lim鈥檚 March ruling was still pending before the Hawaii Supreme Court, state Sen. Rey Graulty introduced Senate Bill 171. It carved out an exemption to the state鈥檚 public records law that would protect information about troublesome police officers.

As he explained at the time, officers who were disciplined should not be forced to wear 鈥渟carlet letters鈥� alongside their badges.

鈥淣ot only will they wear the stripes on the sleeves of their uniforms, but their mistakes as well,鈥� Graulty said then, according to the Senate Journal. 鈥淣ot only are they being disciplined by their chiefs, but they are being pilloried in the press. This is not only bad employment policy, this is bad public policy.鈥�

Matthew Matsunaga, son of famed Hawaii politician, the late U.S. Sen. Spark Matsunaga, was the lone opposition vote in the Senate. He said the records should be kept available because of the public鈥檚 right to know about how their tax dollars are being spent.

鈥淚 think the argument about embarrassment to the family is not a real issue. I think it鈥檚 a red herring,鈥� Matsunaga said then. 鈥淚 think if that were truly an important factor, then we would prohibit disclosure of any public employer鈥檚 wrongdoing because of potential embarrassment to our families. We all have families.鈥�

Graulty, who is now retired and living in Kapolei, says he remembers SHOPO putting on a 鈥渇ull court press鈥� at the Legislature in order to win over lawmakers. He said it was impressive how well the union and the officers made their pitch.

鈥淚t was kind of a real difficult area from a legal perspective because they have collective bargaining rights, they have grievance procedures and they have the rights to privacy,鈥� Graulty said. 鈥淭he Legislature was struggling to find a balancing point back then.鈥�

Police Are Different 鈥� Under The Law

The SB 171 preamble lays out a case that there is already enough information about police misconduct to satisfy the public鈥檚 legitimate interest, whether it鈥檚 through the police department or the court system. The bill notes that names of officers charged with a crime or sued civilly are already in the public record.

The bill also cited SHOPO鈥檚 labor agreement with county police agencies and noted that the union contract required the police department to respect the privacy of officers and keep disciplinary records secret. But that was an argument Judge Lim had already rejected and one that the Hawaii Supreme Court ultimately dismissed, too.

Beyond privacy issues, Graulty also raised the fear of retribution against the police if their names were made public.

鈥淭he Legislature finds that police officers, their families and friends may face retaliation and physical and verbal threats if their names are publicly disclosed for job-related disciplinary actions that may be relatively minor infractions,鈥� SB 171 said.

Graulty put a lot of trust in the system of checks and balances, such as the county police commissions that had been in place for decades, to ensure police officers were being held accountable.

His bill underwent some slight changes, but ultimately gave police officers an exemption afforded to no other public employee. Cops no longer would have information about their misconduct made public unless they were discharged.

All other public employees who are suspended or fired are subject to have their names, details about their misconduct and disciplinary action released as soon as union grievance procedures are exhausted.

Instead, each year the four county police departments 鈥� Honolulu, Maui, Kauai and Hawaii 鈥� would submit a report to the Legislature that outlined the incidents resulting in the suspension or discharge of an officer. Lawmakers believed that the annual reporting requirement would help them keep tabs on the departments and make sure bad cops weren鈥檛 running rampant.

They left the door open to review the exemption. As one committee report noted: 鈥淪hould the number of cases involving malicious use of physical force and mistreatment of prisoners particularly, increase to the point of concern by the legislature, a new policy on police misconduct will likely be developed.鈥�

鈥淭he fact that the law hasn鈥檛 been modified since then means there must not be much cause for concern,鈥� Graulty says now. 鈥淚t seems like it has withstood the test of time. I think that鈥檚 a good indication of the reasonableness and wisdom of the law.鈥�

But, as Civil Beat has reported in this series, lawmakers haven’t been reading the summaries, which also aren’t easy to find in legislative records. They now say they are surprised by the nature and extent of misconduct that has been going on.

SHOPO’s Rise To Political Power

The police union鈥檚 push to get the law changed wasn鈥檛 confined to the halls of the State Capitol.

SHOPO produced an 8-minute 鈥�training video鈥� in 1995 to convince its membership that keeping disciplinary records secret was a good thing for the police force.

Honolulu entertainer Kimo Kahoano played a TV news anchor reading a scripted story about the misconduct of police officers. As the story unfolded, the 鈥渄isciplined officers鈥� were forced to confront their families and friends, their emotional and mental health suffered and they struggled with the reported public backlash to their misdeeds. In the video, one officer鈥檚 daughter is attacked on the playground by her schoolmates, her parents anguished over her bruises and tears. In the end, the officer is reinstated.

SHOPO鈥檚 point? Lots of trauma and embarrassment for well-meaning cops and their families who in the end are vindicated anyway.

Former City Councilman Jon Yoshimura was originally supposed to play the part of the newscaster in the video, but backed out just before filming began. Yoshimura was a former journalist and told The Honolulu Advertiser in a May 17, 1995, article that he had problems with the script.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 really recall what the script said, but there were incidents that the media would never report,鈥� Yoshimura told the newspaper. 鈥淎lso, the way the anchor person鈥檚 text was written was very inflammatory and not very objective. It didn鈥檛 accurately reflect the kind of items the media would find newsworthy.鈥�

Yoshimura also said he felt 鈥渙bligated鈥� to be in the video because SHOPO had endorsed him and given money to his campaign in the previous election cycle. He also said the video was couched as a public service announcement.

As SHOPO business manager Michael Joy promised, the fight to keep disciplinary records secret transformed the union into what is now arguably one of Hawaii鈥檚 biggest political powerhouses.

Its 鈥渞ise from the ashes,鈥� as he deemed it, can be tracked in state campaign finance records. As reported in a 1995 Honolulu Advertiser article, SHOPO was a minor player in 1992, contributing only $600 to political campaigns and spending another $4,000 to advertise its endorsements. Two years later, as the court case continued and the battle was switching to the legislative arena, SHOPO paid out $73,844 in political contributions.

That was about triple the amount spent that year by the state鈥檚 largest public employees union, , the Advertiser reported. HGEA had 35,000 members at the time, SHOPO only 2,500.

Hawaii鈥檚 campaign finance records are destroyed after 10 years, state officials say. Some are online but not easily searchable. But in the , SHOPO鈥檚 political action committee spent more than $176,000 on state campaigns, with $33,315 going directly to candidates and much of the rest to advertising, according to Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission reports. SHOPO also gave to congressional candidates through direct contributions and independent expenditures, including $6,790 to Linda Lingle, $4,290 to Mufi Hannemann and $1,790 to Colleen Hanabusa.

The Legislature Agrees With SHOPO

In February and March of 1995, a year after Judge Lim鈥檚 historic ruling, the media and good government groups coalesced around the students to oppose passage of SB 171. So did the Hawaii Office of Information Practices.

OIP Director Kathleen Callaghan warned that the police officers who were getting suspended or discharged weren鈥檛 committing 鈥渕inor or frivolous infractions.鈥� Instead, they were using unnecessary force on prisoners and assaulting citizens, among other things, she said.

Hiding their identities, Callaghan said, makes it impossible to know if officers are repeat offenders and if disciplinary action is effective.

Christie Lee Williams, the head of the local student chapter of the Society for Professional Journalists, piggybacked on Callaghan鈥檚 arguments, saying that granting access to the names of bad cops 鈥渨on鈥檛 sell more newspapers or generate higher television news ratings鈥� but will 鈥渆nhance the public鈥檚 confidence.鈥�

鈥淏eating up someone in the police cellblock is not an honest mistake,” she said. “Neither is falsifying records. It doesn鈥檛 matter how stressful or dangerous the situations police officers face. There鈥檚 no excuse for violating the public trust.”

Still, not many legislators opposed Rey Graulty鈥檚 bill. And even Sen. Rod Tam, who worked for SHOPO, was allowed by then-Senate President Norman Mizuguchi to vote on the measure after Mizuguchi ruled there was no conflict.

Rep. Terry Nui Yoshinaga was one of those who backed SHOPO, saying that she trusted police officers to protect her home and her family.

鈥淥pen government doesn鈥檛 mean that we destroy the people and institutions that have protected us in the name of openness,鈥� Yoshinaga said. Misbehaving officers 鈥渉ave been weeded out,鈥� she said.

The controversial measure cleared the full House on April 10, 1995. By then, editorial boards of both of Honolulu鈥檚 daily newspapers had railed against it. SHOPO and its supporters had gotten plenty of ink, too, particularly in op-eds submitted to the papers.

鈥淚t was pretty clear that they (SHOPO) had the political clout and the money to get the Legislature to do whatever they wanted as it related to this, and there were very few legislators to stand up to them,鈥� Portnoy, the students’ attorney, said. 鈥淎nd we, being a volunteer lawyer and a few students, tried to do what we could. It wasn鈥檛 even David versus Goliath. It was a joke.鈥�

With that, the measure landed on Gov. Ben Cayetano鈥檚 desk. A former criminal defense attorney, Cayetano was the students鈥� last hope.

Although Cayetano says now he was torn by the issue, in 1995 he was swayed by arguments that much of the misconduct in question was decisions made under stress. Cayetano agreed with the sentiment that cops are in a different position than other public employees,

鈥淚 don鈥檛 think this same right should be made available to people other than the police,鈥� Cayetano is quoted as saying in a May 1995 Honolulu Star-Bulletin story. 鈥淭his is one of the things that really troubles me because I鈥檝e always held that one reason to support the police position is that the police are in a different position. They get abused. They get attacked. They have to make snap decisions.鈥�

Cayetano allowed the bill to go into law without his signature. It took effect July 6, 1995.

Click here to read all the stories in Civil Beat’s special report, In The Name Of The Law.

Thursday: Oversight of police misconduct is lax

Read SB 171:

The post In the Name of the Law: Hawaii Police Union ‘Outguns’ Students appeared first on 天美视频.

On March 29, 1994, nearly 500 police officers staged a show of force at the state courthouse in downtown Honolulu the likes of which hadn鈥檛 been seen in the islands before or since.

The huge demonstration was meant to intimidate a handful of University of Hawaii journalism students who wanted to know the names of Honolulu police officers who had been suspended or discharged for misconduct.

Patrol cars took up every parking space around the building, and officers packed into shuttles running between the Blaisdell Center parking lot and Punchbowl Street.

Not only were the students already entitled to the information under the state鈥檚 public records law, but a Circuit Court judge and the Hawaii Supreme Court would later rule that the public has a “fundamental” right to know that police power is being kept in check.

Still, Hawaii鈥檚 police union worked alongside the and the city to keep information on police misconduct out of the public’s hands.

The UH students’ inquiry triggered a three-year legal battle over government transparency that today continues to leave the public in the dark about officer wrongdoing.

The case also galvanized the (SHOPO), which used the threat against its rank and file to build its political muscle. Even now, SHOPO remains one of the most influential political organizations in the state.

Civil Beat tried numerous times over the past six months to interview SHOPO officials. None would agree to an interview and didn’t return more recent calls asking again for an interview.

Honolulu media attorney Jeff Portnoy, one of Hawaii鈥檚 top First Amendment lawyers, took the students鈥� case pro bono.

He can still vividly describe the scene, especially the fleet of police cars double-parked around the courthouse. He had trouble even getting into the building, there were so many cops 鈥� many of them armed and in uniform 鈥� crowding the sidewalks and steps.

Hundreds of officers waved placards, denouncing the state鈥檚 public records law and seeking sympathy for police officers against the students. “Cops Are Human Just Like You.” “Discipline Police Officers Not Their Families.”

Inside the courthouse, officers flooded the hallways and packed the courtroom with their families.

鈥淭hat whole day is just surreal,鈥� Portnoy said. 鈥淎t the time I was shocked, scared, nervous. Anybody who wouldn鈥檛 would have been lobotomized.鈥�

Testing The Public Records Law

What eventually became a milestone in Portnoy鈥檚 career began on the whim of a college kid.

Jahan Byrne was a student at the University of Hawaii in 1993, and the treasurer of the Society of Professional Journalists-UH Chapter. Byrne had also been an editor at the student newspaper.

Even as a student, Byrne had a reputation for making records requests that rankled public officials. Part of this was family influence. His dad, Desmond Byrne, was the head of Common Cause Hawaii and a well-known advocate for more openness in government.

This time, Jahan Byrne wanted to test Hawaii鈥檚 fledgling public records law. The had only been in place since 1989 and was still being fine-tuned. Byrne had his eye on recent amendments that distinguished misconduct by on-duty police officers from misconduct while off duty.

Byrne sent his records request to HPD Police Chief Michael Nakamura on Aug. 30, 1993 鈥� a single page written on SPJ letterhead.

He asked for the names and titles of all HPD employees who had been suspended or discharged since Jan. 1, 1988. He also wanted to know the nature of the misconduct for each employee, the department鈥檚 summary of the allegations and findings of fact as well as the type of disciplinary action taken.

鈥淲e also understand that this request will not result in the disclosure of HPD officers who were suspended or discharged as a result of misconduct that occurred while they were not acting in the capacity of a police officer,鈥� Byrne wrote. 鈥淗owever, we would like your clarification as to whether your department considers police officers who are working on special duty assignment to be simultaneously working in the capacity of a police officer.鈥�

Byrne wanted to see what sort of check the public records law provided over the power of the police, even those working private jobs or other special assignments. He told The Honolulu Advertiser in February 1994 that he targeted HPD because he felt it was 鈥渢he most secretive鈥� organization and that the unions were 鈥渞ecalcitrant鈥� about releasing any information about officer misconduct.

鈥淎nd that automatically raises a suspicion,鈥� he said, 鈥渕ost likely an unfounded one, but certainly a suspicion.鈥�

A $20,000 鈥楻esearch Fee鈥�

HPD initially responded that it didn鈥檛 maintain the specific records SPJ wanted. And it warned that the public records request would carry a tremendous cost.

In a letter to Byrne, Nakamura said someone would have to manually search through each employee file to 鈥渃ompile and collate鈥� the information. With more than 2,000 files to dig through, he said, HPD would need to charge 鈥渁 reasonable research fee鈥� to cover the cost.

The fee estimated by HPD鈥檚 legal department? $20,000.

UH journalism professor Gerald Kato was the advisor to the SPJ students at the time. He says now he believed the exorbitant amount was just a tactic to get the students to drop the issue.

鈥淭hey were doing everything possible to fight the release of the information,鈥� Kato told Civil Beat in a recent interview. 鈥淭his happened to be a request that we thought would be fairly routine, but it turned into a three-year fight. I think part of the problem was that as everything went on, everyone started to dig in their heels.鈥�

The students took the matter to the Office of Information Practices, the agency charged with enforcing the UIPA. Officials from OIP told Nakamura to release the records and rejected the $20,000 fee.

Nakamura finally gave in and agreed to give up the records. But not before he tipped off SHOPO president Bennie Atkinson, then an HPD lieutenant, that the disciplinary files of the four officers would be made public on Feb. 11, 1994.

On Feb. 10, SHOPO went to court seeking a restraining order to prevent their release. Among other things, SHOPO claimed the release violated its collective bargaining agreement with the state and that the union contract should trump the public records law.

The ensuing legal showdown drew a lot of media attention, both locally and on the mainland. A small group of college kids was taking on a powerful, statewide union. While SHOPO raised money for the fight through membership dues, the students hosted chili feeds and hoped for donations.

In late February, less than two weeks after the union went to court, SHOPO kicked the challenge up another notch. The union鈥檚 business manager, Michael Joy, sent in his own public records request, this one to the university.

Joy wanted personal information about the students working at the school鈥檚 newspaper, Ka Leo 鈥� their names, addresses and phone numbers, even their grade point averages and details about their financial aid.

Although Joy contended the union was simply testing the limits of the law 鈥� similar to what the students were doing with HPD 鈥� others believed it was a more menacing act. SHOPO was lambasted for trying to intimidate the young college journalists.

Portnoy publicly berated the union for trying to scare the students. He felt it was simply a way to get them 鈥� and him 鈥� to back off.

鈥淚 mean what鈥檚 next?鈥� Portnoy said in a 1994 Honolulu Star-Bulletin article. 鈥淎re the people who are involved in the student chapter going to have to worry about mysterious traffic stops or tail lights that aren鈥檛 working? This is incredible.鈥�

The SPJ student chapter demanded SHOPO retract its records request as did the Star-Bulletin editorial board.

The newspaper noted that the disciplinary records the students were seeking were related to public trust and accountability. The police union, on the other hand, should 鈥渁bandon its juvenile behavior and strive to rise to the level of maturity exhibited by the students.鈥�

Eventually, the university gave SHOPO a list of students working at Ka Leo, already published in the paper, but little more.

But the UH students still had an uphill battle when it came to convincing the public that releasing information on police misdeeds was important.

Kato says now the young journalists didn鈥檛 quite realize they were up against a politically popular group with a lot of public respect. Police officers are easy to sympathize with because they have a tough job, he said.

鈥淎nd this is a small community, too, in that sense,鈥� Kato said. 鈥淎 lot of people know police officers, are related to police officers or went to school with police officers. Lord knows, I went to school with police officers.

鈥淥ur effort to disclose (disciplinary) information was not a reflection of our belief that police officers should be disrespected. But it is our respect for the good officers that we believed that there should be a greater transparency about what鈥檚 going on with disciplining the bad ones.鈥�

SHOPO: Families Will Suffer

For SHOPO, the release of officers鈥� personnel information 鈥� even if it involved substantiated police misconduct 鈥� was a matter of privacy.

In a March 1994 newsletter to the union membership, SHOPO President Bennie Atkinson vowed that SHOPO would 鈥渄o whatever it takes to keep your name from being disclosed in the media.鈥�

鈥淲e accept the complaints, the investigations of our conduct, the lawsuits, the injuries and abuse and all the other problems that come with being a cop,鈥� Atkinson wrote. 鈥淲e endure because we love this job, we love catching crooks, helping people, investigating crime, taking responsibility, and making split second decisions.

鈥淲hen the shooting starts, the fight breaks out, the burglar is breaking in, when everyone is running away from the trouble, we are the only ones running toward it,鈥� he added. 鈥淏ut now when you have been suspended or fired from your job, that鈥檚 not enough, now they want to punish your children, your wife or husband, your mother and father, all your family and friends and that鈥檚 the real issue that the Union is fighting.鈥�

SHOPO has long maintained that police have a significant privacy interest. The union zealously guards that privacy right, spelling it out in its collective bargaining agreement and arguing in court that that’s why its union contract should prevail over the public records law. That argument was specifically rejected by the Hawaii Supreme Court.

SHOPO also continued to downplay the seriousness of officer misconduct in its legal challenge. It signed up four anonymous HPD officers who had been disciplined to join the lawsuit, contending they had a real stake in the matter. An affidavit filed by a union attorney touted the officers’ exemplary service records, commendations and community service while acknowledging they had each received three- to five-day suspensions.

But what they did to warrant those suspensions was never revealed.

State Public Records Agency Stands Up For Disclosure

The Hawaii Office of Information Practices also waded into the legal proceedings on the side of the students.

Honolulu attorney Hugh Jones represented OIP at the time. He鈥檚 now a deputy attorney general, with the tax and charities division of the state.

Jones says OIP was still trying to find its footing in the early 1990s. It was a new agency and there were many questions about how the UIPA should be applied to government agencies.

鈥淲e didn鈥檛 really have an agenda,鈥� Jones said. 鈥淲e just tried to defend what was clear in the law and where it wasn鈥檛 clear we consulted the governor鈥檚 committee reports, the legislative committee reports for the law itself and the case law from other jurisdictions.鈥�

In the case of police discipline, Jones said the law was straightforward. OIP found that information the students sought about suspensions and discharges should have been released.

OIP argued that public oversight of how the police handle misconduct was important in order to ensure the integrity of the disciplinary process.

Jones pointed out the same officer could be getting suspended over and over again for similar types of offenses, something people should know.

鈥淚 think the example we used at the time was an officer pulling a woman over at night and then engaging in abusive behavior with her,鈥� he said 鈥淗ow is that woman to know the next time she鈥檚 pulled over by the same officer she鈥檚 not a target?鈥�

March 29, 1994. Like Portnoy, the day is seared into Jones鈥� memory. He too needed an escort to get into the courthouse because there were so many officers crowded around the building.

But it was the next day, March 30, when the judge鈥檚 decision in the case came down that Jones calls 鈥渧ery moving.鈥�

Public鈥檚 Right To Know Is 鈥楩irst Priority鈥�

Circuit Court Judge John Lim stared down from the bench at a room full of police officers and their families. He spoke of the founding fathers and the revolutionaries who fought to forge the United States, their rebellion based on a mistrust of government that is now instilled in present day society and reflected in the U.S. Constitution. It is 鈥渞ife with protections against government and its attendant police power,鈥� he said.

鈥淯nderlying all of those protections against that government and that police power is the people鈥檚 right to know,鈥� Lim said. 鈥淗ow do you exercise your rights against the government unless you know what the government is doing?鈥�

鈥淚 have heard the public鈥檚 right to know referred to rather dismissingly at certain junctures of this hearing; I think that鈥檚 wrong,鈥� Lim added. 鈥淚 think the public鈥檚 right to know is a fundamental interest in our society. It is institutionalized, it is constitutionalized, it is an interest of the first priority.鈥�

Lim鈥檚 ruling was a resounding victory for the students, and his remarks from the bench were even published in full on the opinion page of the Star-Bulletin.

Just days after the ruling the union appealed to the Hawaii Supreme Court, locking up release of the records. Eventually, HPD would be forced to turn over more records on more than 60 cops.

The appeal to the state’s highest court dragged on for nearly three more years. In the meantime, Portnoy won the SPJ鈥檚 national First Amendment award in 1994 for his work on the case and for his mentoring of the students who were involved.

Eventually, SHOPO and the city were rebuffed again. The five justices unanimously rejected SHOPO鈥檚 argument that a union contract would prevail over state law.

In a 61-page ruling, the court said this would lead to an 鈥渁bsurd result.鈥�

鈥淎 public employer is not free to bargain with respect to a proposal which would authorize violation of a statute,鈥� the justices said.

鈥淲ith respect to public records statutes, the virtually unanimous weight of authority holds that an agreement of confidentiality cannot take precedence over a statute mandating disclosure.鈥�

It was yet another victory for the students. But this one was bittersweet.

By the time the court ruled on Nov. 15, 1996, the UH journalism students may have won the battle but they鈥檇 already lost the war.

Click here to read all the stories in Civil Beat’s special report, In The Name Of The Law.

Wednesday: The Legislature undermines court rulings

The post In the Name of the Law: UH Students vs. The Police appeared first on 天美视频.

In 1997, Honolulu police officer Russell Won went to federal prison for his involvement in beating an inmate at the Pearl City police station.

A year later, he was back in Honolulu 鈥� and back in police work. The federal prison sentence didn鈥檛 cause the to fire him. Instead, he was put on leave without pay while he did his time.

When his sentence was over he was assigned to train new recruits at the academy. He kept his gun and badge and went on to become a detective with a long career at HPD.

Won was one of three officers indicted and convicted at the same time for mistreating prisoners in their custody at the Pearl City station. In a plea bargain, Won eventually was convicted of a misdemeanor and sentenced to a year in federal prison.

Sgt. Clyde Hayami went to prison for nearly five years for brutally beating three inmates on three separate occasions. In one of those incidents, Hayami, with the help of Won, clubbed an inmate over the head with a blackjack, sending him to intensive care.

Hayami was allowed to resign as a part of his plea deal, promising never to work in law enforcement again.

Officer Keith Flynn was also convicted in the incident involving Hayami and Won. Remaining on the police department, he served six months, dividing his time between a halfway house and his home. He was suspended but not discharged and reassigned to the Traffic Division鈥檚 Junior Police Officer program.

The case of the three officers in 1996, partly because it came on the heels of much-publicized community debate over police disciplinary records. A year earlier, the Hawaii Legislature had sided with the state鈥檚 powerful police union and barred police misconduct records from public disclosure.

It was a political battle of the highest order, fought in the courts, in the legislative hearing rooms, on the editorial pages and ultimately decided in the governor鈥檚 office. Then-Gov. Ben Cayetano allowed the exemption, which had not been granted for any other class of public employee, to go into law without his signature.

At the sentencing for Hayami and Flynn, U.S. District Court Judge David Ezra gave voice to the reality of what the Legislature and Cayetano had done.

Ezra believed that public knowledge of disciplinary problems was important to prevent abuse of power by police officers, according to an Aug. 6, 1996 report of the sentencing in the Honolulu Advertiser. By HPD keeping their actions secret, he said, it 鈥渃reates a feeling of invincibility.鈥�

鈥淲hen a police officer is found guilty of misconduct after a fair hearing, the public has a right to know,鈥� Ezra told a courtroom packed with police supporters. 鈥淚f that had been in place, this case may never have happened.鈥�

The public is given only a glimpse of what鈥檚 going on within the departments when it comes to misconduct. Under the 1995 exemption won by the (SHOPO), the four city and county police agencies are required to send the Legislature an annual summary of cases in which a cop has been suspended or discharged for misconduct. The summaries list dozens of disciplinary actions a year, each in only a few words. There are no names, no dates, no times or places. Only a brief description of the incident and whether an officer was discharged or suspended and for how long.

Civil Beat has been exploring whether the public has been short-changed by the SHOPO exemption.

In 1995, the Legislature and Gov. Cayetano believed the police supporters who told them the infractions were generally minor and that there were checks and balances in place to winnow bad cops from the force. The supporters argued that police should not be publicly humiliated for the occasional bad decision that might have been made in a tense situation. Cops, they said, are under a lot of stress and should not be held to the same rules when it comes to misconduct as other types of public workers.

For the past six months, Civil Beat has been revisiting the question of whether the public can trust that Hawaii鈥檚 police officers, with their extraordinary power over ordinary citizens, are being held accountable for their actions.

We interviewed nearly 50 people, many of whom were at the heart of the issue both then and now. We investigated the local police commissions and county prosecutors, two oversight entities that legislators believed would help make sure the police were behaving appropriately. And we鈥檝e reviewed thousands of pages of documents 鈥� court cases, legislative records, historical files and other public records to try to piece together what information has been kept secret from the public and the true extent of police misconduct.

At every turn, we鈥檝e found that oversight of police officers is lacking, a far cry from what SHOPO and its supporters promised the Legislature.

And lawmakers now say they have been largely unaware of the extent of police misconduct. They are surprised by the lack of detailed information provided by police officials.

The entities legislators thought would take on the responsibility of watching over cops have had little effect. County police commissions only handle citizen complaints, not the most serious problems that are turned up internally or lead to criminal investigations. Prosecutors generally don鈥檛 initiate independent investigations of serious misconduct and only take on what the police departments ask them to.

Instead, police administrators and others say, it鈥檚 the SHOPO union contract that has come to control what, if any, discipline is handed down to officers accused of misconduct and whether that information is made public.

Civil Beat has made numerous attempts over the past six months to speak with SHOPO leadership for this story. But neither union president Tenari Ma’afala nor Honolulu chapter chair Stanley Aquino would talk with us.

Summaries Have Been Largely Ignored

As a starting point, Civil Beat obtained the annual summaries from 2000 through 2012 that the Honolulu Police Department 鈥� by far the state鈥檚 largest police agency 鈥� filed with the Legislature as required by the 1995 law. HPD couldn’t provide summaries prior to 2000. We complied the information into a database and categorized incidents by type so we could see the extent and seriousness of misconduct over the past 13 years.

We couldn鈥檛 find a single legislator who鈥檇 paid much attention to one before Civil Beat asked about them. Even legislative leaders, to whom the summaries are addressed, said they barely glanced at them.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 think that鈥檚 probably an effective way to get information to us,鈥� said former Senate President Shan Tsutsui, now the lieutenant governor. 鈥淚 can鈥檛 even tell you how many reports I had coming across my desk when I was Senate president.鈥�

Additionally, local officials with authority over the police department also acknowledge they鈥檝e never seen the summaries. Both former Honolulu Mayor Peter Carlisle and current Mayor Kirk Caldwell, who was in the Legislature from 2002 to 2008, say they鈥檝e never read one.

If they had been reviewing them, they would see that even the brief descriptions of police misconduct belie the picture painted by SHOPO and police supporters to the Legislature in the 1990s.

Our analysis of HPD summaries found that about once a week on average a Honolulu police officer is suspended or fired for misconduct. Many of these violations include domestic violence, abuse of suspects, lying, falsifying records and even criminal convictions. They are not primarily minor administrative failures or heat-of-the-moment bad decisions as SHOPO suggested.

Nearly 23 percent involve criminal behavior, ranging from what the department has characterized as assault and domestic abuse to fleeing the scenes of accidents. Incidents that involve criminal behavior outnumber administrative lapses, such as failing to turn in a report on time or being away from the radio without authorization.

Since 2000, out of 512 cases, only 12 HPD officers have lost their jobs after disciplinary action. Eight others were reinstated after the department tried to fire them. Two were allowed to resign. The rest of the cases ended with suspensions. In every case there is no information that would help the public understand why certain disciplinary action was taken or why similar-sounding incidents have vastly different penalties.

Police have argued that it鈥檚 a small number of officers on the force who are getting in trouble, and that generally bad cops are disciplined effectively.

“We deal with a lot of big-city issues when managing a department this size,” said HPD Capt. Andrew Lum. “It’s a large police department and we’re dealing with human beings who are policemen.”

But trouble in the ranks is not uncommon. Honolulu鈥檚 past two police chiefs have each made calling for from their officers after a rash of arrests occurred on their watch. Still, the police administration only discharges officers convicted of felonies and allows cops convicted of misdemeanors to stay on the force, even when those convictions are pleaded down from original serious felony charges.

In the past year, Honolulu police have pleaded guilty to crimes ranging from growing and selling mass amounts of marijuana to lying to federal investigators about tipping off drug dealers.

Now retired, Carlton Nishimura was a police major when he was arrested on federal corruption, extortion and drug charges. Nishimura allegedly warned illegal gambling operations in exchange for money, and when he was found out is alleged to have tampered with a witness who had turned against him. His trial is set for September.

A few months ago, a group of HPD officers after they were caught falsifying drunken driving arrest reports in order to get more overtime pay. This resulted in about 200 DUI cases being dismissed by the Honolulu Prosecutor鈥檚 Office. Those officers are still on the job.

On Maui, a is expected to begin soon in the case of a former police officer who was sentenced to a federal prison term for sexually assaulting a woman while giving her a ride home. The officer, Kristopher Galon, had $1,550 from a man he had pulled over while on duty. Yet he remained a police officer until he was charged with the sexual assault.

Officer Russell Won, the one who beat an inmate and watched his sergeant club the man over the head with a blackjack, tried to hide his involvement, but was caught lying to a federal grand jury, according to federal court records.

He was charged with a felony, but eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor that carried a year-long sentence. Then-Chief Michael Nakamura on the department and take leave without pay while in prison because of his good service record, according to a story in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.

Neither Won nor Hayami nor Flynn could be independently reached for comment for this story. Attempts to reach them through HPD were also unsuccessful.

In Hawaii, police disciplinary files are released only after an officer is discharged and only after the termination survives a lengthy grievance process.

Even then, it鈥檚 difficult for the public to gain access to those files. Civil Beat asked for the files on three officers discharged in 2012 鈥� the only ones that have not yet been destroyed from the 13-year-period we studied. The Honolulu Police Department charged us more than $2,000 for the three records, a price that ordinary citizens likely would be unable to pay.

Most are more open than Hawaii when it comes to police misconduct. Only 10 states prohibit public access to disciplinary records; most open the files as soon as an investigation is finished or a complaint substantiated. Hawaii is one of only a few states that release records only after an officer is terminated.

And in Hawaii, that record is destroyed after 30 months, according to a police spokeswoman. The records are often shredded shortly after the grievance process has played out 鈥� before the public even knows an officer has been discharged.

鈥淭here鈥檚 no political will to take on the police to fix these issues,鈥� said Honolulu attorney Eric Seitz. 鈥淲hat you have in Honolulu 鈥� and the disciplinary process is a part of this 鈥� is an unwillingness to hold the police accountable. The union is too strong. The police commission is useless.鈥�

Seitz frequently sues the police over civil rights violations, including for the use of excessive force and false imprisonment. He says that over the years he鈥檚 found a system that hides the misdeeds of officers while doing little to correct the underlying issues that lead to the wrongdoing.

鈥淭he community is not aware of what鈥檚 going on,鈥� Seitz said. 鈥淭he community is not cognizant that this is an ongoing, day-to-day problem.鈥�

A Powerful Influence

Much of the shroud that surrounds police officers鈥� misconduct starts and stops with SHOPO, the police union that represents 2,884 sworn officers in Honolulu, Maui, Kauai and Hawaii counties.

The records weren鈥檛 always kept secret. In the early 1990s, a group of University of Hawaii journalism students wanted the disciplinary records of four Honolulu police officers. They wanted to see how seriously the public records law was taken in Hawaii, and police misconduct files were fair game.

The city, with SHOPO on its side, fought the students over the release of the information. The case went all the way to the Hawaii Supreme Court 鈥� the students won at every level 鈥� and the state鈥檚 highest court ordered the records released.

But that took three years, and by the time the court sided with the students, its ruling was moot. SHOPO had already used its growing political influence to convince the Legislature and the governor to change the law.

Legislators had said they could revisit the topic should it turn out the misconduct was more rampant than suspected. But as the years went by the reports were largely ignored aside from the occasional story in the local newspaper.

Now, lawmakers and others interviewed by Civil Beat over the past few weeks say they鈥檇 consider re-examining the issue. They say they had no idea how frequently officers are getting in trouble or how serious the offenses are.

Sen. Les Ihara, who as a young lawmaker nearly 20 years ago voted in favor of the SHOPO exemption, has already taken a small step. He wants to close a loophole in the timeframe the summaries must cover and is calling for more detail about incidents of police misconduct.

, which he crafted after learning about the extent of the issue from Civil Beat, has passed the full Senate and is awaiting a hearing in the House.

But it falls short of providing the public with any real means of accountability. It specifically promises that officers’ names won鈥檛 be released and keeps the shroud of secrecy in place.

Former state lawmaker Annelle Amaral voted for the SHOPO exemption in 1995 while a member of the House. As a former patrol officer, she was one of its strongest advocates.

She now regrets an impassioned speech she gave during a floor vote on bill, in which she told her colleagues they would never understand the pressure cops face and that asking for their identities 鈥渋s mean, is hard, is petty and is the worst thing by way of creating state policy that I have yet heard.鈥�

But she鈥檚 changed her mind.

鈥淭oday, if I were in the same position I was back in 1995 I would give a different speech,鈥� Amaral says now. 鈥淚 do think that some things bear public scrutiny. Yes, officers are in a position of trust. They also carry awesome authority and control over people鈥檚 lives so they should be held to a higher standard.

鈥淚 do think the public needs to know if they鈥檙e being disciplined for serious offenses.鈥�

Tuesday: Journalism students take on the cops

The post In the Name of the Law: What the Public Isn鈥檛 Being Told About Police Misconduct appeared first on 天美视频.