Laserfiche WebLink
MR. ONO: I don ' t know if there is a standard. <br /> I say that we live in fear of because there is no standard. <br /> What we do today might be completely correct and tomorrow a <br /> court might say you have abused a so-called reasonable man ' s <br /> standards and usurp your power as a prosecutor so just as <br /> police officers may one day do something that is correct and <br /> the next day find out that the Supreme Court says you can ' t do <br /> that anymore. . .we face the same problem. Being a lawyer, you <br /> can appreciate the"reasonable man ' s standard. What is reason- <br /> able to you may not be reasonable to me or to anybody else so <br /> it is very difficult to answer that question. <br /> MR. ISHIDA: Yes , I can understand that. My <br /> point was really in this that seeing there is such a difficulty <br /> how does one determine when a Prosecuting Attorney does not <br /> exercise, but goes beyond just reasonable discretion because <br /> of the difficulty due to the fact that you are giving the <br /> Prosecuting Attorney a very large amount of power. <br /> MR. ONO: I 'm not sure. I think that is some- <br /> thing that should be left to the courts. The one error I can <br /> see right away would be if a person. . .if the Prosecuting <br /> Attorney just issued it out of the clear blue sky and said, <br /> "Well , I don' t like Joe Blow so I 'm going to go and get him <br /> into my office so I can harass him" . That type of thing. Or <br /> if he uses it for his own gain to gain knowledge which is <br /> normally confidential so that he can get an idea let ' s say of <br /> whatever type of illegal activities that he wants to get him- <br /> self into. Or he wants to get some special inside information <br /> so he could play the stockmarket. These are all definitely <br /> abuses of the power. If this Section does bother you for some <br /> reason, I think it can. . .I don ' t think it should be something <br /> that should be just wholly accepted or wholly rejected. It <br /> may be a Section that could be modified to include some of <br /> your suggestions which may include that the Prosecuting Attorney <br /> is following the course of investigative duties or something <br /> to that nature. Which would clearly set the bounds so that if <br /> the person is not doing it for investigating a crime you know <br /> already that it is an abuse. The inclusion of a phrase like <br /> that might be a saving clause. <br /> MR. ISHIDA: Has your office determined that <br /> this provision , as it stands now is consistent with the <br /> statutory provision as far as the state is concerned? <br /> MR. ONO: I don ' t think there has been any <br /> outright challenge to it. I think the only challenge was in <br /> Honolulu and in that case again I 'm not too sure of the outcome <br /> of the case but I think the Prosecutor' s office backed off <br /> there because it was a conflict with the Attorney General ' s <br /> office. <br /> MR. ISHIDA: Then as far as you are concerned <br /> can you speak for your office as far as your office is <br /> concerned that you feel it is consistent with the statutory <br /> provisions. <br /> MR. ONO: We believe it is consistent with <br /> - the statutory provisions. <br /> -17- <br />