2008-04-07_Bill_270 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Honorable Pudding Lassiter and Members of the Hawai'i Police Commission Honorable Lawrence K. Mahuna May 24, 2006 Page 5 Commission review of these investigations, it is strongly suggested the public be afforded the opportunity to weigh in on this proposed process. No doubt some may argue this is tantamount to allowing the "fox to guard the henhouse." However, when considering the following factors, the wisdom of the proposed new procedure is evident: 1. Priority number one should be the need for all allegations of police misconduct to be investigated thoroughly. 2. The most thorough investigation is one conducted by trained investigators, with tools such as subpoena power. 3. Perhaps the most powerful tool available to HPD Internal Affairs is Garrity, which allows the investigator to obtain a coerced statement and use it in his administrative investigation. This tool is unavailable to non-law enforcement and non-employer personnel. 4. Under the proposed procedure, HPD Internal Affairs presents summaries of all completed investigations to the Commission for review. This is vastly different from the present practice, where the Commission only sees Commission-initiated complaints. 5. If a complainant is not satisfied with the findings of HPD Internal Affairs, he has the option of asking the Commission to exercise its powers of oversight and review the investigation conducted by the police. The complainant has the right to address the Commission at a public meeting. All voting of the Commission must be done in open session pursuant to the Sunshine Law to ensure Commission accountability. 6. The Commission has the power to make recommendations to the Chief in the event the Commission feels a case was not investigated thoroughly or properly. The Commission is the Chiefs appointing authority, and this "check and balance" will ensure some response by the police administration. Note this important component was missing from the proposed Independent Police Auditor legislation, since the auditor was not the Chiefs appointing authority, and there was no incentive on the part of the Chief to address concerns raised by the auditor. As referenced in my earlier communication to the Commission, the purpose of this letter is to initiate discussion on ways we may improve the Commission's role in investigating allegations of police misconduct, with an eye towards improving public accountability and restoring the public trust.