2001-03-16 Police Commission Minutes

Home

March 16, 2001 Regular Session Minutes Page 2 Corporation Counsel Ashida stated that under the charter, the commission's powers and responsibilities are specific. There may be a good reason or not a good reason for officers to not take his complaint. The police commission does not have the jurisdiction or the tools or resources to answer his question. They could entertain his complaint after he has exhausted all his remedies at the police department. Mr. Ashida recommended that Mr. Starbuck go up the ladder at the police department. If he is not satisfied with what the major did, he can take it to the next level. He could write to Chief Correa and give him all his information. After all of that, then he could come back to the commission. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Moe moved to approve the executive session minutes of December 18, 2000, and regular session minutes of December 22 and 28 and January 3, 2001. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hara and unanimously carried. PERSONNEL ORDERS Commissioner Williams moved to accept Personnel Orders Nos. 1001 -021 to 2001 -033. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambeth and unanimously carried. COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Lambeth moved to accept the minutes of the Kauai and Maui Police Commissions and Correspondence 036 to 045. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Manago. Corresp. 041, downtown Hilo businesses requesting assistance in dealing with increased crime in the area. Commissioner Williams informed that he read in the newspaper that the police department has already addressed the problem, made arrests, and is trying to clear up the narcotic violations. Corresp. 45, the Honolulu Police Commission requests the commission's support in opposing Senate Bill 848. Chief Correa reported that they feel this will hamper or have a major impact in the way that administrative investigations are currently conducted and how they are able to net out discipline. There are many major concerns. One has to deal with the process in which they want to give officers rights, to provide somebody with legal experience to oversee or hear the hearing. There are lots of costs involved. The other issue is that if an officer feels he will not get a fair shake from the department's investigation and hearing, he can ask for a change of venue to another police department. More importantly, there are stipulations that require 72 hours notice that certain actions will be taken. This could have an impact on how they handle their random drug testing. They would have to give someone 72 hours notice that they are going to do a drug test. When they do an administrative investigation, they mandate the officer to give them a statement. They give the officer Garrity Rights which means that when the officer makes a statement, that statement cannot be used in a criminal case. If the officer decides that he does not want to make a statement to them, he's subject to disciplinary action which could mean termination. This came out of a state case whereby an officer who was involved in criminal and internal activity chose not to make a statement, and so he was terminated. His private attorney is the senator who introduced the bill. There are many hoops and loops that they have to jump through that actually burdens management in their ability to properly manage and discipline officers in