2008-04-07_Bill 270_Ordinance_re_Office_of_Police_Oversight

Home

Honorable Pudding Lassiter and Members of the Hawaii Police Commission Honorable Lawrence K. Mahuna May 24, 2006 Page 3 Commission to achieve those objectives identified in the proposed independent police auditor legislation. I have previously identified two principal investigatory tools the Commission lacks; (1) the ability to provide Garrity rights to police officers, and (2) subpoena power. With respect to Garrity, it is unlikely anytime soon our United States Supreme Court would amend its monumental decision and allow non-employers and non-law enforcement officers such as civilian board members the authority to administer Garrity warnings and receive and use coerced statements in administrative investigations. With respect to subpoena power, there is a possibility legislation may be pursued to allow the Commission this authority. However, on balance, it would appear the most efficient method of completing a thorough investigation into misconduct is to allow the Internal Affairs Division, armed with the aforementioned investigatory tools as well as the expertise to utilize them, to conduct the investigation. The Commission may then, pursuant to its oversight powers, review the investigation and make necessary recommendations to the Police Chief. 3. Is there corruption in the Police Department? This question was asked of me by Councilman Safarik. I answered unequivocally"no." He asked what my definition of"corruption"was. I responded that it was a systemic pattern of wrongdoing permeating through multiple layers of an organization, including the administration. Councilman Safarik disagreed with me, opining that corruption may occur within a small subgroup of an organization, unbeknownst to the administration. He asked how this corruption may be found out and eliminated, and whether the Commission could perform this function. For purposes of this discussion, I will assume "corruption" is synonymous with "knowing wrongdoing." If this is occurring (officers stealing evidence, officers not arresting acquaintances, e.g.), it may be found out through reporting by aggrieved parties, reporting by co- workers, or the discovery of incriminating evidence. This corruption may occur in any organization, but is generally perceived as most disparaging when it occurs in a law enforcement organization, such as a police department. It would appear that preventive training, preventive mechanisms, accountability measures, and auditing are all methods that may effectively mitigate the occurrence of such corruption. To this end, the Commission is encouraged to work with Chief Mahuna to examine these measures. In sum, we need to