HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0564.001 1996-1998 R
f
To the Hawaii County Council
County Building -Hilo Hawaii ~ r
From Henry A. Ross - Kapaau ~V 'v Vt ~ ~ _ ~ ' ; „ ,
Re: Yo r Comm. No. 564. n s d of o n r
outside tawvers to defend the oolice in civil law suit 9752
HAND-DELIVERED: 24 November 1997
1 AM VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO SPENDING PUBLIC MONEY, an estimated
$150,000 FOR THE DEFENSE OF POLICE IN A POLICE BRUTALITY CASE, that will be
presented to you by Dep.Corporation Counsel Joseph Kamelamela, in executive session, as
a conflict of interest case, which it is not. 3 local prosecutors who are intimately connected
with the police in this case will be defended by Corporation Counsel (CC) and if they do not
constitute a conflict with the County and the Mayor, who are also Defendants in the suit, then
neither do the police. 1 submit that if you decide that there IS a conflict for the police and not
for the prosecutors, the police must be referred to SHOPO for legal services.
As far as the statute is concerned, specifically Section 52D-9 HRS, which mandates
that the decision of the Police Commission shall be conclusive (for providing legal repre-
sentation to the county police), I want to refer to item 16 of my sworn declaration filed in
court on 14 Nov.`97, of which copies were served on all of you individually on the same date
and which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.. For reasons stated therein that section of the
statute is unconstitutional. But what is worse, the Police Commission went illegally into exe-
cutive session with unrecorded deliberations on this subject, after conspiring with the police
as they always do to keep it secret, because providing money for the defense of police in
civil matters is NOT among the 6 reasons why they may convene an executive session, as
are allowed by Section 92-5 HRS, the Sunshine Law, to which it is subject. A copy of HRS
92-5 with the six reasons is attached as Exhibit B. It would appear that this is corruption.
From previously submitted documents, such as copies of my sworn complaint to the
Police Commission of 13 November 1995, the County Council is aware that I was arrested 2
years ago in what is popularly known as the "cough drop case", for being falsely accused by
Kalani Schutte's granddaughter of physical harassment when she was a cashier in the KTA
Super Market in Kamuela, while in fact it was she who attacked me. The Police Commission
had the case investigated but refused to grant me a contested case hearing which was indi-
cated in this case pursuant to Section 91-14 Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), the decision of
which is nwr pYpnding before the Supreme Court in appeal as is the criminal case against me
and yet Esther case for Quo Warranto because the County Prosecuting Attorney, who dis-
qualified his office from the criminal case, then illegally called in the Honolulu Prosecutor to
handle the fake charges. t also filed for a Writ of Prohibition in the Supreme Court against
Judge Jeffrey Choi for not disqualifying himself while he admitted on the record that ha was
a friend of Barry Taniguchi, the President of KTA and sits on the same school board with i
and also for selling his fish catch as a commercial fisherman to KTA. Judge Choi invented a~
~ c~ » 6~1.
r,3.
Rer. iY~tE: 4 1997
new crime when he said he gave me a jail sentence of one day because I was "arrogant".
It is my contention that the executive branch of the county is out to railroad me among
things, for being an activist or as the papers call it a "county watchdog", and 1 think that you
as legislative branch of the county ought to be made aware of the vindictive actions by police
and prosecutors against me, and in this regard I think it is apropos to remind you of a recent
issue before you where you allowed the public, especially women who work at night, to carry
pepperspray for self defense. Since I strongly advocated that decision 1 have received many
crank phonecalls and have repeatedly been reproached by local police who most apparently
feel threatened by the public having pepperspray, while it is the police that have repeatedly
abused its use. I enclose a newspaper article, marked Exhibit C about such hon'ifying abuse
of innocent people with pepperspray, smeared in their eyes by police in California, that you
may already have read. It is a typical example of police brutality that is rampant in many
states, also here, that of course is not limited to just pepperspray, as we all know from the
Rodney King case, and I remind you of the widely published Wanjen case and also a recent
Fragiau case, where the police of this county used pepperspray in people's face, at far less
than the minimum distance of 2 feet, as mandated by the chief in his general order No. 805.
It is therefore my opinion that police, who must set an example, should henceforth be
punished with double sentences and fines when they abuse the public that they must by law
protect. I have read statistics that show that criminality in the ranks of police on average is
percentage-wise greater than that of the general population. I have heard in the Hilo police
station how a policeman on the police radio objected to certain instructions saying: "I have to
cover my own ass first". That is not what the law mandates, the law mandates the police sin-
gularly to protect the public, for which they are paid extravagantly compared to other govern-
ment jobs: call it danger money. Our military in Somalia and Bosnia are in far greater danger
and do not get half the pay of most police. We have a Police Commission, that by law must
control and critically evaluate police behavior. Instead, in meeting after meeting, we find a
rather cosy interaction between the commission and the police before them, an attitude of -
never mind the public, where the commission and the police praise each other and themsel-
ves,instead of promoting a balanced adversary climate where the commission shows who is
boss, as mandated in the County Charter; all to the chagrin of the general public that gets 6
minutes allotted to speak even if there is only one person testifying, while the police without
time limit reads dull statistics of its good pertormance into the record, that had already been
published in the newspapers. The commission then sometimes applauds these recitations of
good behavior. With few exceptions the general public has obviously given up on going to
commission meetings where little more is accomplished than pleasant exchanges of a public
relations nature between police and the commissioners, and an overindulgeance in time con-
suming illegal discussions of non-privacy matters in executive sessions, instead of a serious
attempt by the commission to exert rigorous and meaningful oversight of our county police.
To illustrate the above I attach in Exhibit D, a letter to the editor in the Tribune Herald
of 21 November 1997 by Michael Schiszler of Pahoa, whom I do not know or ever heard of.
He finds fault, as I do, while new police recruits are psychologically tested and must pass lie
detector tests, with a failure rate of 40 - 50%, all other police on the force are not and never
were tested. In my opinion that points to potentially even a higher deficiency rate in that
group, because many good police have left the force out of disgust . Md I want to add that at
least all policemen considered for promotions should be subjected to the above tests.
2
When I was convicted in district court of harassment without anv witnesses to anv
crime at all and without a prior criminal record 1 decided to get a decision in this matter by
filing a civil Complaint No. 97-452 for damages in Circuit Court against the county police (6
persons) and the courtity prosecutors (3 persons), the County and the Mayor (as admini-
strative head of the police). I served that Complaint on CC, who 1 assumed, would represent
all defendants as the county diarter mandates, but Mr Kamelamela did not agree and at first
told me he would only represent the county itself and I would have to serve the complaint
and summons on all defendants individually, as t did to prevent further delay (see Exhibit E,
where on its page 2 Mr Kamelamela incorrectly stated that service on prosecutors Smith and
Garcia was improperly made, which is not true as previous offidal service on CC was suffi-
dent for parties he represents). He told the 6 police however to apply to the Police Commis-
sion for outside legal representation, which they did. After convening an illegal executive
session in which to hear these police without my presence in its meeting of 14 November,
the commission decided to grant the police, with whom they are obviously in cahoots, private
counsel, for which you are expected to famish money. One should ask the question that if
ICamelamela can not represent the 6 police, how come he can appear before you to ask for
your approval of such outside representation ON THEIR BEHALF (see Comm. 564, his letter
to you), this makes him in effect their attorney. If he tells you that he only appears on behalf
of the county, then he should leave it to somebody else to ask your approval for outside legal
help for the police, ESTIINATED TO COST S1ti0.t>DO. - THAT IS YOUR AND MY MONEY.
I assure you that if a conflict develops along the wey, there would be time enough to
then pn~pose independent counsel for each individual defendant. Here police and prosecu-
tors worked hand in clove to get me into court without probable cause and on fake chases
Furthermore the Police Gommission, apart from other illegalities, as always, had the
audacity to ask the police applicants ff they wanted a closed session (a kangaroo court).
Three said yes, but 1_policeman. Hickman. even STATED THAT HEW TED OPEN
SESSION Exhibit F1 BLtT WAS STILL DE/u T WITH IN CLOSED SESSIO^t In this
case consultation with its own counsel was not necessary, and there were no privacy or
money matters involved at all, just a determination to provide legal aid, as done often before.
I also attach for your information amides from 2 newspapers that give you a fair idea
of past and present in this case, attached as Exhibit G. 1 will be present at your December 3
meeting to answer any questions, that you may have. A transcript of of the essential parts of
the commission's audiotape of its open meeting part on 14 November will also be provided.
It would seem that your decision should be deferred till you get the real facts together.
The public is very disconcerted over the police promotion case and I am sure you are frustra-
ted too about having to spend millions on questionable issues, nothing more than political
games about police and prosecutors out of control. This is a case of well documented swin-
dle where you do not have to grope in the dark, but get the facts straight first. 1 cot 6 whole
minutes in the Police Commission to focus on it+e sauan~ering of 5150 000 of public money
As a tlnal solutlon, if you should feel you must go along wi h I propose that you
stipulate only to provide funds for outside counsel if ha in ividual police each cost a bond
for the full amount you allot. with irrterest for 6 veers the time it takes through the marts
Even 'rf the county pays for the cost of such bonds it ~~till be cheaper than logsina it au
Then if they ktose they had no right to the money and the county only lost the bond premium
3
`
Henry A Ross
P.O. Box 99, Kapaau, Hawaii, 96755; ~
T~rarv rrraiTina addross• g) ~'~1'." P~,;i 9: ! 2 - ,
Go 1.80 Ksawe Street auk. 31,
Hilo Hawaii- 88720 - - - - CHP,RL~Ni. t`.; Ut;P.'NA
~ ,
Phone 889-5587; CeILPh. 937-7739 _ .
Plaintiff pro se.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII
HENRY A. ROSS, )
Plaintiff, ) CIVIL NO. 97-452 (Hilo)
vs. ) (Assault an battery)
COUNTY OF HAWAII; )
WAYNE G. CARVALHO; STEVEN S. )
CLARK; JOSEPH T. LALLY; HENRY W. )
HICKMAN; JOSEPH KEALOHA; ALAN )
M. KIMURA; ) DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF
JAY KIMURA; WILLIAM SMITH; JANET) HENRY A. ROSS;
GARCIA; DOE LEGAL ENTITIES 1 -L5) CERTIFICATE OF SERVlGE
Defendants )
~~~ATION OF PLAINTIFF HENRY A. ROSS
1. Except as to those matters stated upon information and belief, I have perso-
nal knowledge of the facts contained herein and am competent to testify to the same.
2. 1 hereby declare that this deGaration is made on penalty of perjury and further
in good faith and to the best of my memory and knowledge. It is not made for the pur-
pose of delay or harassment.
3. This declaration is made to inform the Court about improper and illegal proce-
dures that are presently going on before the Hawaii County Council (Council) as well as
in the Hawaii County Police Commission (PoLCom.) regarding this matter.
4. Plaintiff was brutalized by hw Hews.ii ty police (police) on 14 September
1995 (9/14/95), and arresYsd wiUwut orobable cause. Reference is made to Plaintiffs
sworn Complaint made to Pol.Com. on 11/13!95, exactly 2 years ago, of which copies
4
were disVibuted to all Council members at the time. A copy of Plaintiffs Amended Civil
Complaint No. 9752 for damages, dated 9/29/97 is also presently in the possession of
Pol.Com., while another copy will be deposited with the Council shortly, for disVibution.
5. With the exception of Defendant Hickman all police were in unHorm and
Plaintiff asstpries that all the averred actions by the police took place in the performance
of their duties, as is Dearly expressed in paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint as
follows: [see also for reference Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) 52D- 8 8 9J
GENERAL Ar.i.RGATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION OF AMENDID COMPLAINT
10. Uffiil a will appear by discovery ~ one trial that such is not the ace, the indivi3ral defendants,
Bove named, are alleged to have been acting within the course and/or scope of then e~ioyment a au rimes
relevant herein. They were abo acting under the rnbr of their ehxted, appointed, assigned or otherwise
acQrirod atRhasitis and antler the rnbr federa4 state and mnty law, se well as appiiabk rules of pro-
dun, incheding the "General Orders" of the Hawaii County Polio Department. These orders are simply
rules of procedure of the Hawaii County Police Department adopted and/or authored by the chief of police.
6. Admittedly all Defendants are mentioned in their official and private capacities
but this is merely because in a recent case in Honolulu a policeman Rogelio Meta stole
from and helped burglarize George and Mae Williams, while on duty and under the color
of authority, which local Corporation Counsel (CC) took to pointing out possible conflicts
of interest in the defense of this case, between the county andlor ottrer defendants.
7. Therefore CC wanted me to make service on everybody individually while in
my opinion because this is a civil t:ase he must represent all under the County Charter,
stating in Section 5-2.3: "The corporation counsel shall represent the county in all legal
pror~edings I did not see a segregation of defendants as my obtpation and pointed
this out in my letter to CC of 10/6/97, also quoting the Mate case inter alia as follows:
The face that Dti~ arc fasmally sued m a pertaml capacity aside from their opacity as county emplo-
yesa, was limped in item 10 of the Amended Compiaiot, (SFE HEREINAJJOVE>. [The Charter mandates]:
civil kaal rsoceediaae acct shall perform aU other
servios incident m the ei'Sx as may be required by law.... (scoot added).
That means that you tee the attortey for all deteadaese in thu see in matters rdafei to their official
powers and dmis and yonr own idler mt5rnts that bemfe Y4R informed the above sew, as their
attorney, not to aoxpt service m behalf of other toasty employes, who mry oleo be sued ac individuals in
this miter as per above. Yw have not taken inb oomideeation that thry are hat;ally erred as misty
empbysxc and will asdy be erred as i~viduals whey it ie decided by the met that retpoodeat wperior dos
not hold, even white en dnry in the eervia ~ the minty. ere has ban diec~taeed in a recent Memorandum
Opinion ruled: VVat:awsc v. Ci~v & ..err., a al. slip op. 18844 of 9 June 1997. Msewhiie yaa arc their
attorney by (see minty charter quohtion supra) and you have been served Remaim for me to provide
the individual dew with a Dopy of the mnplaia and summons peewant to Role 4(d) (ti), ('n and (3),
which an even be dine by mail. As I had no individual addrcsees however I had the documents delivered to
the respective departments, where you interrupted individual delivery.
2 AL
I do mt mind arin~ the mail to d~ m, but you will then as their attorney have to provide me with their
addresrea, as her repeatedly tx~ papored in Hawaii care law.
8. Although I regarded the requirements of CC regarding individual service of all
Defendants as unrlecesaary delay and harassment 1 complied and served everybody by
sheriff, whom I had to provide with documentation and addresses etc. which apart from
an inordinate amount of tithe also cost me the unnecessary sum of 5236. Some people
have been served 3 times with the same documents in this process.
9. Requests for individual representation are now coming to Pol.Com. because
CC has obviously been in cxirttact with them, and some of these are on ks agenda for
October 17, 1997, with more on the wav. CQncumntly CC had a nawst osndlna on
today's cotx~cfl aaenda under Comm.No. 6d4. dabd 11Y31/9~. to dbcuss iL~ ns-
treaearv from tM county for this law suflr public money, from oaxtty residents indu-
dtng myself, to defend and pay for police txutality etc., perpertrated on one person: ~
10. 1 WAS ~es.~'!O!
~
Y ACGIl8ED TROD A_ND GONVIGTED OF HI'TTiNC-
A FEMALE CASHIER (Mawr than nr and !f0 years vourtaarl fN A 8L~R1~eQrFr
Half the island oooufaflort knows m! and nobot:Iv hNieves it Only a bunch of txazed
'law erMoroerrtent' fanatics and some police cowboys who are still mad at me for getting
peppersprey available for women who work at nigh. They feel threatened. It's ridiculous!
11. Five police defendants break their own Hiles and those of the chief the same
who break state. county and federal Iaws The Chief through his chain of command does
not properly supervise, refract, andlor discipline the cowboy types in his force, he does
not sufFcierttly and legally update his general orders. Though there is now psychological
testing of rtew reat~ts with excellent results, such testing is not done before promotions.
12. Prosecutors break taut rules, their code of ethics, are guilty of selective pro-
secution, cook up phantasy charges with police together, then withFwld jury trials, break
state and federal laws, make exculpatory evidence disapppear, don't write proper briefs.
13. ALL OF WHICH SI N TR IN A ~t t [.FT vnt CaAJi/E AT ANY Gncr
And now after ell the mental and physical trauma these law erttorcers have caused and
the great expenses in time and money they have spent, WE the victims are salted to pay
for their defense in court. SHOULD IT NOT BE OBVIOUS FROM THE CASE
SUPRA, AND MANY LIKE ONES, THAT ARE NOT HEARD OF, THAT THESE POLICEA
3 ^3
"
OFFENDERS SHOULD EITFtER PAY FOR THEIR OWN DEFENSE, LIKE EVERYBODY
IN A SIMILAR SITUATION, OR t3E RELEGATED TO SHOPt], their union?
14. In the case it was decided that Mate was jy~ protected by HRS
52D- 8 8 9, although he ailed while on duty and in uniform, and "under the color of
authority'. The Supreme Court decided M supra that according to #228 of
the Restatement ~ Agency (secpnd)(1955) that "Conduct o/ a servant is not
within the scope of employment N it is different in kind from that authorized, far
beyond the autl~orized time or space limits, or too little actuated by a purpose to
serve the master." Under these guidelines the police defendants are not entitled to any
defense paid for by the . This is also true for the Chief because he has failed to
promulgate rules of procedure (General Orders) in accord with HRS 91 as is mandated
by the County Charter and HRS 52D-3 and should have been supervised by Po1.Com.
15. As no money is asked to legally represent the defendark~roaecutors from
Po1.Com. or the Council at this junction, this matter may be left alone for now, but it must
be remarked that Williams supra also gives guidelines in the same vein for prosecutors
who do not fulfil their required teaks and are sued, as is the case here.
16. THE STATUTE when k states in tl2D-9 that "THE DETE YrNemw
OF THE POLICE COMMISSION SH_er ~ BE GONCLU~ cn~ T~+~ ar rappcs no
ITH.eT13ECT10N AND SECTION 62D~" IS GLEeQ1
Y UNG^NSTITUTIO r ON ITa
FACE
There is ~aoh~tety nothirp the United States that is conducive until it has been
decided by at least 2 of the 3 powers of government. THERE IS ALWAYS APPEAL
17. k is therefore not surprising that the Coundi has deMrnd this issue and
it might behoove Pol Com to do the same till the matter has been cleared o before
public moneys thrown out the window wi ~ It seems bad enough that another,
the Wiltiarn Silva et at vs. Courrtv of Hawaii et al case, Civil No. 96-00359 DAE(U.S.) that
was on the same Co~xx:il agenda today has swalk~nred 5300,000 in legal fees already
and will likely require another such sum in fees after which a settlerrier>t wiN follow, all of
that for illegalities perpetrated within the county police department. It is about time police
starts paying such expenses out of its own pockets instead d at public expense, moreso
because these matters have nothing at all to with its prime task of protecting the public.
4 A
4
18. In k~ntrast this particular case does have to do with external behavior of the
police, where it should set examples of good behavior. If police cannot be examples of
good behavior for socety, real aims will flourish to the detriment of all. Police must be
held as examples by getting double the punishments of normal people when they cross
the line. They are overpaid as it is and need no hand-0uts. Having them pay out of their
own or Shopo's pockets will tend to make them more cautious in their own behavior.
Some police have been overheard bragging in the hallways of the cokut-house that they
made over 385,000 per year, "more than a judge". This points to a sick system of justice.
19. What especially hurts in this case is that the victim Henry Ross got the run
around from CC while the police was pampered. The case was handled by Mr Joseph
Kamerrlela. He at first insisted not to be able to represent anything but the for the
way the case was presented. Later he agreed to also represent the mayor, then the
three prosetxitors, as kxig as everybody was served individually (contravening HRCP)
but he professed to leave the 6 policemen out of his realm as attorney because of pos-
sible k:onflicts of interest, such as that the county might have to defend against them or
pay. Why Kamelamela included the Chief in this sextet is not dear to me at this time.
20. As can be seen on Correspondence no.510, 511 and 512 dosed sessions of
Pol.Com. are indicated for considering the Alan IGmura, Joseph Lally and Joseph
Kealoha cases. This is itlsalal. There is absolutely nothing of a private nature in money
considerations of legal counsel for these three policemen AND I WANT TO SIT IN IF
THERE IS SIGH A SO~ALLED t?l(t?C rTtvF ro en• ~ PARTEI SESSION
21. The statute that governs here is HRS 92-5. It gives 6 items that might warrant
an executive session. Providing attorneys is not among there. It may be of interest that
the commission or its aecretarv on its behaN also does not have the right to ask police-
men ff thev want an exekxaive sesyoun This bad habs must end right now Police ere
t118re t0 Droted thB Dubuc. nOt t0 be nretwr~ed from t_he DUbIIG et all tuna: m~~A} tha rem
missiOn detemllne If BxeClltlye aeeAUx+Q are werrentad arvi halA n~ manrtatart h • uRc
92- & 5. POlice n9ed nOt t0 be D9n1D9I'Ad bV 9 C1Y1'lmilainn tt,at aviatc }n rvnte.a 11.s
Dubuc against illegal police intrusions What we must salt are these polioe^^a^ so afraid
gf. Are these the heron that are highly neid for protecting us nd verv often dnn'to
S A
s
22. In G~ 513 from Hidvnan he states inter alts: (ACCENT ADDED)
HENRY ROSS'S CHARGE WAS AMENDED [FROM ASSAULT) TO HARASS-
MENT BY THE PROSECUTOR TO AVOID HAVING A JURY TRIAD ROSS WAS
CONVICTED Fit THE HARASSMENT SOMETIME DURING AUGUST 1917.
Thank you very much, Henry Hickman, for that valuable piece of information. I have not
in 2 years been able to find out that Defendant-Prosecutor Janet Garaa manipulated the
trial art~cially (after William Smith helped you to push it up to Assauk via triple phone
hearsay) in such a way that I would surely be convicted. The iurv 1 wouldn't
ever have found me aunty of anvthina :t all. Thus I fell victim to a one-man jury: Choi.
I can and will certainly use thin tidbit of ir>fonriation in my aooeal to the ~~~*+o rti~rt
23. Further Chief Carvalho informs ua in Correspondence 514, that Kamelamela
who told me to serve the Chief peroonally because he could not represent him, had a
phone conversation with him, subsequent to which he now requests lapel help from Pol.
Com. It appears to me that Kamelamela, who I am sure also was in contact with the other
policemen, should have responded SORRY CHIEF, YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN, I AM
NOT YOUR ATTORNEY, instead of criticizing my p<-oper service on the chief as unao-
cepteble (see case file Civit NO. 97x452).
Kamelamela is also the attorney who requested an executive session from the
Ca~ncil in this case to discuss the financial ramifications including tho/~~e of the police.
Dated: Hib Hawaii, 13 November 1997 /t'
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE wry A. Ross, pro se
I have nerved today by hand-deliveryl0 copies of this declaration on the Hawaii County
Council and also 10 copies on the Hawaii County Police Commission, further one copy
on Mr Joseph Kamelamela, Dep. Corporation Counsel at 101 Aupuni Street, Hib, Hawaii
98720, on behalf of the County. I will further serve copies today, either in person, or by
mail to their respective office addresses on the 6 police Defendants, CarvaNio, Kealoha,
Lally, Clark, Kimura and Hidvnan, and the 3 prosecutors, Kimura, Smith and Garaa.
14 November 1997: ~Z 1~c,5.ti
6 ~i _ ~
A6
c P
0 92.1. Deolaration of policy and intent.
l'n a democracq, the people are vested with the ultimate decision-making
power. Oovernmeatal agencies east to aid the people in the formation and
m conduct of public policy. Opening up the governmental processes to public
q scrutiny and paeticipation is the only viable and reasonable method of
PC pro~ct~g public's interest. Therefore, the legislature declarer that it is the
policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public polity -the
ii~~ ~s~Dri°ns, deliberations, dearionr, and action of governmental agencies -
~ ~ shall be conducted as openly as possible. 1b implement this policy the
~ legislature declares that:
(1) It is the intent of this pert to protect the people's right to know;
oNi ~ The provision requiring open meetings shall be liberally construed;
~ (3) The provision providing for ea:e
prior to the open meeting require-
_ meats shall be strictly construed against closed meetings. [L 1976, c 166, pt
of 4 ll
Z 4 92-4. Ezecutive meetings.
d Aboard maq hold ea executive meeting closed to the public u n an
affirmative vote taken at an o ~
U P~ meeting, of two-thirds of the members
present; provided the affirmative vote constituter a mt{jority of the members to
which the board is entitled. A meeting closed to the public shall be limited to
matters ezempted by section 92-6. The reason for holding rush a meeting shall
be publicly announced sad the vote of each member on the question of holding
a meeting closed to the public shall be recorded, and entered into the minutes
of the meeting. [L 187b, c 168, pt of ~ 1; am L 1986, c 278, ¢ 2]
4 92-6. ]i~eptions.
(a) Aboard may hold a meeting doted to the public pursuant to section 92-4
for one or more of the following purposes:
(1) 1b consider sad evaluate pe~reonal information relating to individuals
2 applying for professioml or vocational licensee cited is section 28-9 or both;
e...~..~ (2) Tb consider the hire. evaluation, dismissal, or discipline of an officer or
employee or of chasgee brought against the officer or employee, where
consideration of matters affecting Privacy will be involved; provided that if
the individual concerned requerte an open meeting, an open meeting shall be
! held;
i e""`~? (3) 'Ib deliberate concerning the authority of persons designated by the
board to conduct labor negotiations or to negotiate the acquisition of public
Property. or during the conduct of such negotiations;
(4) Tb consult with the board's attorney on question and issues pertain-
ing to the board's powers, duties, Privileges, immunities, and liabilities;
t~'~~ (b) 1b inveetigr>e proceedings regarding criminal misconduct; and
6 (6) Tb consider sensitive matters related to public safety or security.
(b) In ao instance shall the board make a decision or deliberate toward a
deasion in an executive meeting on matters not directlq related to the
Purposes specified in subsection (a). This part shall not apply to any drance
meeting at which matters relating to official business are not discussed. No
chance meeting or electronic communication shall be used to circumvent the
spirit or requirements of this part to make a decision or to deliberate toward a
decision upon a matter over which the board hat supervision, control, juris-
diction, or advisory power. [L 1976, c 166, pt of ~ 1; am imp L 1984, c 90, § 1;
am L 1986, c 278, ¢ 3]
P_ a er s ra torment
pp p Y
reak olitical rotest
to b p p
By Charles Levsndtasky ~ v ~ ~ the middle of the floor in the office reception area.
Casper (Wyo.) Star-Tribune / 7 / ~ ~ r1 The floor is strewn with sawdust and wood chips that
three other protesters had dumped in Riggs' office.
They had also wheeled in the redwood stump on a dol-
With chilling deliberateness, adeputy sheriff dips a ly, then left-before Riggs'staff kicked the women pro-
cotton swab into a cup filled with pepper spray. He testers in the office, so they would be there when the police
approaches 16-year-old Maya who is sitting quietly on arrived.
the floor with a soft, brown hat on her head. A police offs- On the stump sonreoce carved:'°[}ris deal [rakes slangs
cer forces back her head and pries open her right eye. The of oar tu~e•"They are protesting an agreement that albws
swab is swept across her lower eyelid. The girl stifles a the krgging of a portion of Northam California's oki-growth
sob. "redwood forest. They brought their political protest to
They repeat the operation on her left eye. She shakes Riggs' office.
her head as if to shake off the intense pain. One of the women is now having trouble breathing.
She could be your daughter, my daughter. She was- Her nose is running. Someone else coughs. And coughs.
n't threatening anyone. She wasn't violent. She had no Someone snuffles.
weapon. Moments before she had been smiling. Now her Another shakes her legs and swings her head side to
head is bent as her eyes burn. side. One cries, "Oh, my God. Oh. Oh, my Gad."
This isn't a scene horn a South American torture squad, This is not a scene from a torture squad in Colombia
this is Humboldt County, Calif. or Chile. This is California redwood country. This is a
The uniforms crouch as they shuffle over to the next congressman's state office.
protester in the circle. They show no anger. Their actions After a few minutes, the women are warned to release
are cool and purposeful. themselves from the metal tubes so they can be acrest-
Someone gave them orders. They are following ed individually -or, the officer says, "We will have to
them. use a direct spray."They ask for 5ve minutes to consider
"One grabs Jennifer's head. "Will you release yourself?" what to do.
he demands. "You've already made your point. Release your-
"Don't," she pleads, "please don't."They smear her selves," says the deputy.
eyes with pepper spray. "Why aze you using chemical weapons on us?" Ter-
^A11 four women who sit in Congressman Frank Rig- ri asks, "You have other options."
gs° Eureka office moan in pain. Iisa kicks her feet to [tam- Five minutes Iater,the deputy and the police officer
ple the pain she fins. move behind Tem.
Their eyes are closed tight. They scream out. The police officer calmly pulls her ponytail back so
Terri yells, "They are torturing American citizens with her face is upturned. "Please let me go," she begs. The
pepper spray." deputy leans over her and shoots the pepper spray
The women remain linked to each other with metal directly into her closed left eye. The canister of chem-
sleeves over their arms. Linked iii pain. Linked in cause. ical spray is not more than 4 inches from her face. Ter-
They refuse to unhook themselves. ri sobs and Tries to pull away.
The four sit arm-to-arm around a large tree stump in Terri would later call it "a shacking sensation that huR
incredibly." active ingredients in pepper spray can stop the heart for
"Will you release, now?" he insists softly. "Will you five to 10 seconds. Oxygen leveLS in the body drop. Arte-
release now?" rial pressure drops. Mucus fills the lungs. The heart goes
The women unhook themselves. haywire. Death follows.
One of the officer's says flatly, "We are not torturing Popper spray has been implicated in the deaths of at
you anymore." least 31 people in California since January 1993, aceord-
This is a scene from a law enforcement video tape. ing to the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern
It is real It occurred on Oct. 16 in Eureka. In America. California.
Riggs sent out a press release from Washington D.C. In 1995, the National Coalition on Police Account-
inwhich he claimed his staff was "terrorized and assault- ability, (N~OPA) an organization of religior?s, community,
ed."The police video does not confirm his assertion. Nor legal and law enforcement representatives, called for a
does the video tape the demonstrators took as they ban on the use of pepper shay. Lynne Wilson of N-COPA
wheeled in the redwood stump and arranged them- claims that at least 60 people in the United States have
selves in a circle. died because of the spray.
They greeted the staff politely and told them why there The manufacturer of the brand of pepper spray used
were there. in the Eureka action, Defense Technology Corp. of
If Riggs' staff was terrorized, why did they lock the America (Casper, Wyo.), recommends that its spray
protesters in the office with them? not be used closer than three feet from the face to avoid
There was no assault, no terrorism -that is, un61 the permanent damage to the eyes.
sheriff deputies and police officers arrived. When asked his gut reaction to this misuse of his com-
It was a peaceful political demonstration, a cher- pony's pepper spray, Defertse Tech's spokesman David
fished American tradition. Under the law, they could be Dul3ay of Casper said, "We won't make a comment on
arrested for trespass -but it's not up to the police to pun- that Since I'm employed, my personal opinion is also
fish them. That's the court's responsibility. my professional opinion. Therefore, I won't have a
The California Department of Justice "recommends comment on that."
thaz Oleoresin Capsicum (pepper spray) be used only agairst
violent or hostile subjects." Eureka law officers ignored The United States, which signed the United Nations
it. Convention against Torture, describes torture in its own
Oleoresin capsicum is derived from hot peppers. terms, as "the intentional infliction of severe physi-
' When applied to the eyes, it has an immediate and cal pain or suffering... directed against persons in the offerd-
painful burning effect that may last for hours. It swells er's custody or physical control."
the eyes shut and makes it difficult to breathe. Medical The demonstrators were in police custody when they
studies show it can cause asthmatics to convulse and die. bad the pepper spray daubed in their eyes.
Pepper spray, some claim, can stop a grizzly bear bet-
terthan abullet. Charles Levendosky, editorial page editor of the
Medical researchers John and Hazel Coleridge, emer- Casper (Wyo.) Star-Tribune, has a national reputation
itus professors az the University of California at San Fran- jorFirstAmendmetu commentary. His a-mail address is
Cisco, have shown in animal studies that one of the levendos@trib.com.
CRUEL TORTURE AND ILLEGAL ABUSE OF PEPPERSPRAY BY
HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, POLICE ON NON-VIOLENT
PROTESTORS WITHOUT WEAPONS WHO DID NOT RESIST
THIS IS A BARBARIC STONE AGE COUNTRY
C
Z
Screening process flawed?
There was an intetasting front page article in the Hawari
Tribune-Herald, Oct. 19,1997 concerning a new scxcen-
ing process for Big Lsland Police Officers. It is rtow more
difficult to find eligible applicants. The reason for this
difficult situation as stated, is the addition of two more
crucial steps (psychological testingpie detector), in tht
application process. Many applicants (recruits) are
weeded out during these new requirements, and now, only
the best candidates are being chosen. This is good
Dews, but the rest of the story was not printed.
What percentage of the officers, employed by Hawau
County before a psychological exam and lie detector teat
was a requirement, would fail or pass the tests?
The HawaiiTribune-Herald Oct. 6, 1994, front page
article quotes Harold Hall, a neuropsychologist who's
done psychological screening of police recruits fdr
Maui, "the failure rate there runs 40-50 percent." 1b8t 6
article, which was three years ago, goes on to say thgt •
the Big Island Polito Department is the only one in the Tr1bUlle - He ral d
state, that does not have psychological testing as ~ _
requirement for police recruits.
Would the average normal person minutely suspect,
that statistically speaking, 40-50 percent of the Big
Island Police Department before the new screening
proor~ wem mro effea nooently, oorrkl be relieved oEdunes Frida
with early retirement beaests. Ibis is frightening beyond Y
belief, especially when one thinks about a police of£r _ November 21,1997
ar with a guq who did not have a standard psychok>gical
exam, lie detector test or a drug test, as a requirement, '
to serve the public. Could it be possible that a percenh
age of the Big Island Police Department, could be
Do we leave it alone, like good little people, or
should we bee truly corrcerrred about the safety of the peo-
ple of Hawari County? Are we being held hostage by the
fact that the majority of the Big Island Police Officers
will never be tested? How many of those, need to be weed-
ed out?
I pray to God, for everyones' well being, and, I feel
it is time to demand that a solution be formulated, by the
proper authorities, in the form of mandatory retroactive
psychological authorities, in the form of mandatory
retroactive psychological, lie detector and drug testing;
far all of the Big Island police officers who were not tes4
ed before this new screening process was a requirer3ent.
Will this make the front page? '
Michael Schiszlei
Pahoa
Ex`li6it-~
Iy`~~. o
~1Y W. ;'S
i~
Stephen K. Yanuahiro ~ Richard Wurdeman
Mayor corporation Cou1uel
w r
i~•«•N~~
~IIl2It~~ II~ ~?i~lTtiti
OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL
101 Aupuni Street„ Suite J2S • Hllo, Hawaii 96720.4262 • (808) %1-0251 • R: (808) %1-8622
October 3, 1997
Mr. Henry A. Ross
c/o 190 Keawe Street, Suite 31
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Dear Mr. Ross:
Re: H~.>]R' A. Ross v. Coun of Hawaii. et al.. Civ. No. 97-452
On October 2, 1997, we informed Portia Hara, Prosecutor Jay Kimura's secretary, and
Shigeko Kiyojima, Chief of Police Carvalho's secretary, that they are not authorized to accept
service of complaints on behalf of other employees of the County of Hawaii who have been sued
as individuals in the above-referenced matter. At this time, Jay Kimura is the only individual
defendant who has been properly served with a complaint and summons in this case.
In order to serve a complaint upon individuals in a proceeding of a civil nature in the
Hawaii State Courts, service may be made as follows:
1. By delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to him personally,
Rule 4(d)(1)(A), Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure ("HRCP"); or
2. In case he cannot be found, by leaving a copy thereof at his dwelling house or
usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing
therein,j~.; or
3. By delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an agent authorized
by appointment or by law to receive service of process, Rule 4(d)(1)(B), HRCP;
or
4. Upon an officer of a county, by serving the county and by delivering a copy of the
summons and of the complaint to such officer, Rule 4(d)(7), HRCP; or
Mr. Henry A. Ross
Page 2
October 3, 1997
5. By an order of court providing for service by registered mail upon a party not
found within the State, Rule 4(e), HRCP, and Sections 634-23 and 634-24,
Hawaii Revised Statutes.
See also, Paul v. Paul, 9 Haw.App. 176, 182, 830 P.2d 1158, 1162 (1992) (In the absence of
controlling statute, an attorney may not, without express authority, accept or waive service of
original process by which jurisdiction of the court over the person of the client is first
established). Hence, under Hawaii law, an employee of a county must be personally served with
a copy of the complaint and summons, unless the employee has expressly authorized an
individual to accept such service on his behalf.
In this case, the secretaries have no authority to accept service of the complaint and
summons on behalf of William Smith, Janet Garcia, Chief of Police Carvalho, Officer Steven S.
Clark, Officer Joseph T. Lally, Lt. Henry W. Hickman, A/Sgt. J. Kealoha and Officer Alan M.
Kimura. No lawful service has been effected for these individuals.
If you have any questions, please call me.
Sincerely yours,
RICHARD D. WURDEMAN
Corporation
Counsel
By (
JOSEPH K. KAMELAMELA
Deputy Corporation Counsel
JKK:mo
cc: Jay Kimura, Prosecutor
Wayne G. Carvalho, Police Chief
ross
-2-
~2
n Y
Mr Joseph K. Kamelamehr, - /o~j
Deputy Corporation Counsel HAND-DELIVERY
of the County of Hawari, ~ ? u ~ : ? P i' I 0 6
]O1 Aupuni Street, Suite 325,
IPilo Hawaii, 96720
Re: Henry A. Ross v. County of Hawaiietal; Civil~Iv.-972,
Service of Process
6 October 1997
I received your letter of 3 October 1997, in which you note that you have informed Portia
Haza and Shigeko Kiyogima, secretaries respectively of Defendants Prosecuting Attorney Jay Kimura
and Chief of Police Wayne: Carvalho of the County that they aze not authorized to accept service of
complains on behalf of other employees of the County of Hawaii.
That service took place because the private addresses of police and deputy prosecutors aze not
given out by the Police Department and Prosecutor's Office. So the logical place to serve these people
is to deliver it to their office and leave it with a trusted person, when they are out. I have made service
like that in the past and nobody has ever objected to it as you presently do.
The fact that Defendams are formally sued in a personal capacity aside from their capacity as
county employees, was limited in item 10 of the Amended Complaint, reading in part:
Until it will appear by discovery or during trial that such is not the case, the individual
defendants aze alleged to have been acting within the course and/or scope of their
employment: at all times relevan herein......
County Charter Section 5 ,,>.3. Powers. Duties and Functions of Corooration Counsel reads in part:
The corporation counsel shall be the chief legal advisor and legal representative of all
county agencies, the council and all officers and employees in matters related to their
official powers and duties. The corporation counsel shall represent the couny in all
~8~ ~roceedinas and shall perform all other services incident to the office as may
be required by law. (accent added)
That means that you aze the; attorney for all defendans in this case in matters related to their official
powers and duties and your own letter confirms that because y~ informed the above secretaries, as
their attorney, not to accept: service on behalf of other county employees, who may also be sued as
individuals in this matter as per above. You have not taken into consideration that they aze bvasically
sued as county employees and will only be sued as individuals when it is decided by the court that
respondeat superior does not hold, even while on duty in the service of the county, as has been
discussed in a recent Memorandum Opinion titled: Williams v City & Counv e:t al slip op. 18844 of
~ ~s
9 June 1997. Meanwhile ;you are their attorney by law (see county charter quotation supra) and you
have been served. Remains for me to provide the individual defendants with a copy of the complaint
and summons pursuant to Rule 4(d) (6), (7) and (3), which can even be done by mail. As I had no
individual addresses however I had the documer?ts delivered to the respective departments, where you
interrupted individual delivery.
I do not mind using the mail to do so, but you will then as their attorney have to provide me
with their addresses, as hhas repeatedly been proposed inj Hawaii case law.
This afternoon I have picked up the 6 copies of complaint and summons from Shigeka at the
police station for a superfluous second service. When I went to the prosecutor's office to pick up the
copies for Garcia and Smith, the latter happened to walk by, when I stood at the receptionist, and he
said he would accept service from me and that he had already read the complaint, he thought it was a
waste of my time to keep me running around like that and agreed that the court is only interested to
know that the parties have indeed been served. He would call you to confirm accepted service.
You have not mentioned the Mayor who has been served through his secretary and you don't
mention him in your letter, however I was informed that his copy was forwarded to you.
Friday you told men on the phone that you want to get to the merits of the case, and so do I.
Then why all this hassle as you will agree that the fastest way to get copies to the people mentioned in
your letter was through Shigeko and Portia, and service by delivery to these secretaries of police chief
and prosecutor has always been acceptable in the past. It would not be in divorce procedures where a
statute specifically provides for individual personal service, which is not the case here.
In my opinion it violates Rule 1 HRCP, that mandates a "just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action", when you have me run to the sheriff who may have to make repeated
trips into the country before he reaches each of the indicated defendants. But so be it. If anybody
complains about late service I will have to refer them to you. Nothing personal of course; but I don't
think you are right in your perception of service, which is costing me unnecessary money, while it does
nothing to keep the system running more efficiently. If there are any more problems please phone me
at 889-5587, where you can leave a message after the beep, even if there is no announcement because
of power interruptions.
Henry A. Ross, Plaint pro se,
2 ~/1L
f..
r
1~
To: Stephen K ~atnaahiio, Mayor of the Cou~y of Hawau,
cIo Office of the Mayor, 25 Aupuni Street, Kilo, HI, and:
Wayne G. Carvalho, Chief of Police of the County of Hawaii, HAND-DELIVERY
do Kilo Police Station, 349 Kapiolani Street, H>yo, HI
Re: Henry A Ross v. County of Hawau et al, Civil No. 97-452,
Service of Process `
14 October 1997
I have tried to get personal copies served on you of the Amended Complaim and Summons in
fire above indicated Civil case, in which you are mentioned as Defendams in your official capacities as
officers of the Coumy AS WELL AS in your private capacities. After these copies had been served on
your secretaries I got the impression they were refused, Deputy Corporation Counsel Joseph Kamela-
mela informed me at the time that copies must be served on both of you personally by the sheri8'
So I gave the sheriff two new copies with inspections to serve those on you in person at your
office addresses, because your private domicile addresses are unlmown. The sheriff then against my
instructions served those copies on Corporation Counsel, Richard D. Wurdemart on your behalf, and
Mr Wurdeman accepted that service. Some time earlier a wpy of the same document had been served
on Mr Wurdemsn on your behalf in your ofiiaal capacities.
In a phonecall late yesterday I was now told by Mr Kamelamela that the latest service that Mr
Wurdeman accepted y°ur' behalf was accepted by him as authorized person by you to receive the
certified copies of the Amended Complaim on your personal behalf as parties in the above suit in your
private capacities.
I would like to find out from both of you if Mr Wurdeman was indeed authorized to receive
service for you in your private capacities. If tlmt is so, then the matter of service is closed and finished.
If that however should not be the case, please let the know by return of mail, and I will again send the
sheriff to make yet another service on you in person in your office, which he tells me is very difficult
because you are not available most of the time. If I do not hear from you this week I will assume that
the above service was indeed_ac~t~bleso
'-yiw,_. u" "y°u for urn cooperation. .
I IVMrH ~0 Alt;;;, 1 -
hT 8 Wd hT i~0 L6. Henry A. Ross, Phumrffpro se
XC: Mr Richard D. Wurdeman do 190 Keawe Street, Hilo HI, 96720
Mr Joseph Kamdsmda ~7 3 ~ f~ u
~S
OCT 2 71997
+~y
M
vtY' Wayne G. Grvilho
Stephen K Yamashiro I
Mayo, Jnna~~me~s S. Correa
..a Maw • ~Y-t9 Pours O:ie/
faziunf~ try ~ttfuu'rt
POLICE DEPARTMENT
389 Kapiolani Street Hilo, Hawaii %7763998
(80819353311 paa (8081 %13702
October 24, 1997 CONFIDENTIAL
TO SSS~~S ELE. POLICE COMMISSION CHAIR
FROM D N 8. , ACTING ASSISTANT CHIEF,
ACTING PO CE CHIEF
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATION HY CORPORATION COUNSEL
HENRY A. ROSS VS. COUNTY OF HAWAII; STEPHEN R.
YAMASHIRO; FIAYNE G. CARVALHO; STEVEN S. CLARK; JOSEPH
T. LALLY; HENRY w. HICRMAN; J. REALOHA; ALAN M.
RIMURA; JAY RIMURA; WILLIAM SMITH; JANET GARCIA; DOE
LEGAL ENTITIES 1-25
CIVIL NO. 97-452
Pursuant to Chapters 52D-8 and 52D-9 of the Hawaii Revised
Statutes, Lieutenant Henry W. Hickman is requesting
representation by counsel for acts done in the performance of
his duties as a police officer.
Lieutenant Hickman„ who is being sued and named as a defendant
in this matter, was served with the complaint on October 15,
1997.
His memorandum is enclosed. Copies of other relevant documents
are attached with Sergeant Joseph Lally's request for
representation under the same subject title.
TJH:lk
.Enclosure a.SS
.
cc: Lieutenant Henry i7. Hickman ~ ,
~Xk~•6~•~ ~ f 000513
L
TO WAYNE 'G. CARVALHO, POLICE CHIEF
VIA PROPER CHANNELS
FROM HENRY W. HICKMAN, LIEUTENANT, BONA DISTRICT, FIELD
OPERATIONS AREA II
SUBJECT CIVIL COMPLAINT 97-452, HENRY A. ROSS/REQUEST FOR LEGAL
REPRESENTATION
On October 15, 1997, I was served a Civil Complaint made by Henry
ROSS regarding an arrest that was made on September 14, 1995. Refer
to report number E-76105/SK/ASSAULT. ROSS was. charged with Assault
in third degree and Disorderly Conduct.
Henry ROSS's charge was amended to Harassment by the Prosecutor to •
avoid having a jury trial. ROSS was convicted for the Harassment.
sometime during August 1997.
Henry ROSS made Police Commission Complaint on this same incident
and it was investigated by the Police Commission. I have not been
informed of the disposition.
I am requesting ghat the County of Hawaii Corporation Counsel or
appoint an attorney to defend me in this civil complaint, since the
incident occurred while working for the County of Hawaii Police
Department. A copy of the complaint, Civil No. 97-452, is attached.
~F~~
EUTENANT
OC~~1~ R 20, 1997
~a ~7
~ X13
Z
t O--Hawaii Tribune-Herald, Thursday, November 13, 1997
Cops want county to defend them
in lawsuit over arrest
By Crystal Kua A District Court judge in July An all-points bulletin was
Tribune-Herald found Ross guilty of harassment issued for Ross.
and sentenced him to 30 days in Ross was stopped later that day
Police Chief Wayne Carvalho jail with all but one day suspended. on the highway by police at Kaohe
and four other police officers are Ross is appealing the conviction along the Hamakua Coast.
asking the Police Commission to and the carrying out of the one-day Hamakua police officers Joseph
approve county-paid lawyers to jail term, which was stayed pend- Lally and Allan Kimura were
represent them in a lawsuit tiled by ing the outcome of the appeal. involved in that stop, Ross said.
government watchdog Henry Ross Ross was arrested and transport-
over his 199 arrest followin an The charges stems from a Sept. ed to the border between the
encounter with a Waimea su er- ly, 199, incident involving Ross Hamakua and South Kohala dis-
market cashier. p and former KTA Super Stores trios. He was then transferred to
Ross said he plans to make a cashier Beau Schutte over the price the custody of Waimea police offi-
statement to the commission of cough drops. cer Joseph Kealoha who transport-
opposing the requests for legal Schutte said that Ross grabbed ed Ross to the Waimea police sta-
counsel which the commission will her right wrist and began yanking tion to be booked, Ross said.
take up in a closed session Friday. it during the incident. Officer Steve Clark and Lt.
"It rubs me the wrong way," Ross said he grabbed Schutte's Henry Hickman were a[ the station
Russ said Wednesday of the arm in self-defense after she raised when Ross was brought in.
requests. "They can go to SHOPO her arm. Ross sued these officers, Car-
(the police union) to get legal Ross left the store and then a valho and members of the Prosecu-
help." KTA emplo7ee called police. toe's Office -including Prosecu-
tor Jav Kimura.
"The police did not need to
arrest me," Ross said.
Lally, Kimura, Kealoha, Hick- HAWAII TRIBUNE HERALD
man and Carvalho have sent letters
to the Police Commission request- 13 &1C NOVEMBER 1997
ing legal counsel from the county.
The Police Commission must
determine whether [he officers police anel OKs le ai re nests
were acting within the scope of P 9
their duties as police officers in t The Police Commission on Friday approved requests by Police
deciding whether to approve the ~~I Chief Wayne Carvalho and five other police officers for legal repre-
county-paid defense. sensation paid for by the county.
If Izgal counsel is approved, the Carvalho, Lt. Henry Hickman and officers Steven Clark, Joseph
officers could then be represented Lally, Joseph Kealoha and Allan Kimura were named in a lawsuit
by either the county Corporation tiled by government watchdog Henry Ross, who was arrested fol-
Counsel's Office or a private lowing arun-in with a supermarket cashier in Waimea.
lawyer paid by the county if the Ross, who was convicted of harassment opposed the requests for
Corporation Counsel's Office legal counsel.
declares that it has a conflict of _ The requests now go before the County Council for final approval.
in[zrest.
POLICE COMMISSION DECIDED IN MEETING ON 14 NOVEMBER 1997
TO HAVE COUNTY' PAY LEGAL FEES FOR INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
TO DEFEND 6 POLICEMEN IN HENRY ROSS' POLICE BRUTALITY CASE
WHILE CORPORATION COUNSEL CAN DEFEND ALLL DEFENDAN~
~ic~i/ b~~ + !
County to pay legal fees
wltii I~i~IG~
In alleged brutality SUIt , Kona prosecutor
gy JASON ARMSTRONG r ~ NUV ~ ~ still reviewing
West Hawaii Today
HILO -Island taxpayers must provide attomeys to defend six Big Darrow DUI case
Island police officers named in a civil lawsuit alleging police brutality, g JASON ARMSTRONG
the Police Commission voted unanimously Friday. Y
The need for a legal defense [4as triggered by the lawsuit government West HaWeli Today
watchdog Henry Ross filed in September alleging he was mistreated dur- HII.O - A county prosecutor is
ing a Sept. 14, 1995, arrest that followed his physical confrontation with still considering what criminal
a Waimea KTA supermarket clerk. charges - if any - to bring
Although Ross claims he was arrested without probable cause, a dis- against a Hig Island police officer
trio judge in July found him guilty of harassment and issued a one-0ay involved in a drunken driving acci-
prison sentence, which Ross is appealing. dent that killed a fellow officer.
Ross suffered "mental and physical trauma", according to his com- Officer Kenneth KeGipio died
plaint. March 28 after his Ford Bronco
Ross names defendams Chief Wayre Carvalho, C.t. Henry Hickman, and was hit from behind by a Ford
Officers Joseph Lally, Allan Kimura, Steve Clark and Joseph Kealoha, all of sedan driven by off-duty Officer
whom asked the Police Commission to provide their legal defense. Jeffrey Darrow.
Prosecutor ]ay Kimura and two members of his staff also were cited as A blood test showed Dartnw was
defendants. legally drunk at the dme of the
Commissioners, during a closed-0oor session, determined the officers were accident.
acting within the scope of their official duties, secretary ]osie Pelayo said No charges have been filed
Earlier in open session, Commissioner Donald Abdul said state law against Darrow, who has ieceived a
makes the body's decision automatic. conditional driving permit allow-
"If we feel they were doing their duties under the law, then we are ing him to continue working as a
obligated to provide them with counsel," Abdul said. "Nobody's going to Puna patrol officer.
tell me that I can't do it because I know what the law states." "I have reviewed the reports, but
Ross, who acts as his own attomey, said the law Abdul cited is "clear- there's more things that need to be
ly unconstitutional on its face;' and urged commissioners to reject the looked into,' deputy prosecumr
defense request. Carol Kitaoka said last week.
The County Council will now be asked if private attorneys should be She declined to estimate when
I hired or if county civil attomeys may serve as defense counsel, deputy I her analysis will be complete and a
corporation counsel ]oseph Kamelamela said. decision made on whether Darrow
should be charged. Kitaoka did say
Lawmakers last week approved another $365,000 to pay private attor- scheduling conflicts will prevent
net's to represent the county and four current and former ponce officers more work on the case for about a
in a civil rights case alleging cheating within the department A total of wcek, which will extend the inves-
$865,000 has been set aside to cover the pretrial costs. Ligation into its sixth wcek
WEST HAWAII TODAY - 17 NOVEMBER 1997
POLICE COMMISSION DECIDED IN MEETING ON 14 NOVEMBER 1997
TO HAVE COUNTY PAY LEGAL FEES FOR INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
TO DEFEND 6 POLICEMEN IN HENRY ROSS' POLICE BRUTALITY CASE
WHILE CORPORATION COUNSEL CAN DEFEND ALL DEFENDANTS
~xl~i ib it'- ~-s