2008-04-07_Bill_270 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Honorable Brenda Ford April 7, 2008 Page 5 went unabated, resulting in the possibility that this matter was reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). A review by our office of this case reveals complaints were filed by the complainants against this Ka'u police officer under Hawaii Police Commission complaint numbers (HPC) 03-32, 03-33, 04-08, and 04-49. The first three complaints involved allegations the police officer was stalking the complainants, and gave them "stink eye." The fourth complaint involved another complainant who alleged the police officer did not complete a thorough investigation when looking into a matter where he was the victim. With respect to HPC 03-32 and 03-33, both complaints were sustained by the Police Commission. The cases were then referred to the Police Department for an independent investigation. The complainants in this case had obtained a temporary restraining order against the police officer. When the matter was brought before the Honorable Joseph Florendo, District Court judge for the imposition of a permanent order, Judge Florendo denied the request of the complainants, and dissolved the temporary order. This fact was brought before the Police Department's Administrative Review Board (ARB), who then summarily concluded that there was insufficient proof on the record to sustain any recommendation of wrongdoing by the police officer. Based on this finding, no discipline was meted out to the officer. With respect to HPC 04-08 (the "stink eye" incident), the Police Commission found there was insufficient evidence to conclude there was evidence of misconduct, and the matter was closed by the commission.' With respect to HPC 04-49, the following synopsis received from the Police Department Internal Affairs summarizes the complaint as well as its outcome: On November 8, 2004, (the complainant) called for police assistance after his neighbor was verbally threatening him. (The complainant) did not have a phone so he walked to the Ocean View Volunteer Fire Station to call Police. When he placed the call to Police Dispatch, he informed dispatch that he was armed with a gun. Two officers arrived and it was learned that (the complainant) was in possession of a handgun. The gun was recovered under Place to Keep/I-11737. The officers then took(the complainant's) complaint and initiated a Terror Threat investigation/1-11736 against(the complainant's) neighbor. A thorough and complete investigation was conducted and routed to the Prosecutors Office. On December 06, 2004, (the complainant) files a complaint indicating officer told him that the case will be thrown out before it gets to the prosecutor's office. It is important to note that under present procedures of the Police Commission and Police Department, cases where the Commission finds insufficient evidence are still referred to the Police Department's Internal Affairs Division for investigation and review. This"safety net" ensures cases do not"fall through the cracks," and that all allegations of police officer misconduct are independently reviewed by Internal Affairs.