2008-04-07_Bill_270 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Honorable Brenda Ford April 7, 2008 Page 8 and police officer firsthand, a decision may be made whether to sustain or not sustain the complaint. Historically, in those cases where the Commission sought further information, a referral to the Commission's private investigator was made. However, these investigative reports proved less than helpful, as the private investigator did not have the benefit of obtaining a Garrity' statement from the accused police officer. Also, these Commission investigations would take place some time after the alleged wrongdoing, and it proved problematic to locate witnesses and obtain meaningful statements and evidence. In sum, these investigations would be no more than a regurgitation of the existing police report, with the taxpayers being assessed close to $2,000 per report. With the appointment of Lawrence Mahuna as Police Chief, the Commission has enjoyed unprecedented access to internal police records concerning the investigation of police officers. This has been the product of long and arduous negotiation with SHOPO, who had historically been on record as not "recognizing the Police Commission." Under the present informal agreement with the police union, SHOPO encourages its officers to attend Police Commission hearings, although they are not compensated for their attendance and time, and although any statement against their interest may be used against the officer by the Commission or the Police Department. Presently, where the Commission requires further investigation, instead of utilizing a private investigator at taxpayer expense, a referral is made to Internal Affairs. Internal Affairs then completes a thorough investigation, complete with the taking of a statement pursuant to Garrity. The case then proceeds to the police administration as described above, and a report is made to the Commission on the results of the investigation and any discipline meted out. For cases that are closed by the Commission as having insufficient evidence, the case is nonetheless still referred to Internal Affairs for an independent investigation. This unprecedented safeguard not used by any other county but Hawaii County ensures that no case will "fall through the cracks," and every allegation made by our citizens has the benefit of a complete Internal Affairs investigation that allows for the taking of a Garrity statement from the officer. At the end of each investigation and case, the complainant is advised by either the Police Department or Police Commission as to the outcome of the investigation. Although the exact type of discipline may not be divulged to the 5 Garrity v. State of New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 87 S.Ct. 616 (N.J. 1967).