Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0572.006 2008-2010 _.:i, _ Monday October 14, 2009 RE: Comm. 572 / Discussion on Ordinance 08-181/ (HawaN County Code HCC 14-96- et secy.) Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance Aloha Council Members, Please review these questions attached which express some of our concerns regarding violations to the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance in Hawai' i County. It is our hope that you take the opportunity of a meeting with Police Chief Kubojiri and our Corporation Counsel to ask these questions as we believe this will help to facilitate the implementation of the ordinance as required by law. Attached is an appendix of related documents that may also be useful to review and which provide additional details. Included in this appendix are three letters from the Board of Peaceful Sky Alliance which could help to provide more background information relating to the questions listed below. If you want further information, please feel free to contact Wolf Daniel Braun, President of The Peaceful Sky Alliance on 808 8954383. -From the Board of the Peaceful Sky Allliance. Submitted by Daniel Braun, President, Peaceful Sky Alliance Comm. No. ~ • (o Ref. To; Ref. Late OCT 2 0 M(19 2 QUESTIONS FOR POLICE CHIEF KUBOJIRI: 1. Have you read the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance in its entirety? 2. Have you received advice regarding implementation of this ordinance? ? If yes, state from whom the advice came. ? Provide details of the advice given to the Hawai'i County Police Department. 3. The law explicitly states that "Hawai'i County Council shall not support the acceptance of any funds for the marijuana eradication program." ? Are you aware of this fact? ? Are you aware of who approved unused funding be "rolled over" from the budget of the previous year? (refer to August 28, 2009 Hawaii Tribune-Herald article) 4. It is public record that Lieutenants Chong and Sherlock of the Hawai'i County Vice-Section have made statements that indicate that the Vice Section is in violation of the ordinance. ? What guidelines and training have you provided for the personnel of Hawai'i Police Department concerning the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance? 5. An amended Police report submitted to Council on Sept 10, 2009 contains a phrase added to the wording of the ordinance as follows: "...After November 4, 2008 Officers of the HPD were notified of Ordinance 08-181 and informed to respect lowest priority enforcement in the case of adult personal use on private property when other laws are not being violated.." (refer page 1 of amended Police report submitted to Council on Sept 10, 2009 NOT INCLUDED IN APPENDIX) ? Are you aware that by using the additional phrase: "when other laws are not being violated" that you are inserting an interpretation that is not based in the law as it is written? ? Could you explain the reason for adding this phrase to the report? 6. The formula used by the Hawai'i County Police Department to calculate the money expended in pursuit of adult Cannabis offenses as required by the ordinance is a simplistic arithmetical division of the entire Hawai'i County Police Department Budget by the number of "service calls". This simple calculation does not serve to fulfill the requirements of the law. ? The sum of the "total budget" is not stated in the report and the term "service calls" is not defined. ? The term "service calls" does not identify time and resources involved in the enforcement of adult Cannabis offenses. A more accurate calculation is required which would include police-time spent making reports, investigations, court appearances and incarceration of ' those arrested for adult Cannabis offenses. Also omitted from the report is the time officers in the Hawai'i County Police Department spend preparing for and participating in 3 marijuana eradication missions and the cost for this time as per the ordinance: " any instances of officers or deputies assisting in state or federal enforcement of adult cannabis offenses.."(HCC §14-102) Please explain why this information was omitted from the formula used to provide an estimate for the amended report. 7. Are you aware that the American-Civil Liberties Union have contacted the Hawai'i County Council and have expressed concerns regarding 8. Are you aware that the American Civil Liberties Union have contacted the Hawai'i County Council to express concerns regarding the targeting of medical marijuana patients in marijuana eradication missions by Hawai'i County Police Department? ? Specifically, medical marijuana patients are singled out in surveillance missions and, by the actions of the Hawai'i County Police Department, patients suffer strain and further health problems for which Council members may bear liability. Chief Kubojiri, it has been stated on record that the HCPD does not target medical marijuana patients. However, current practice is that: "prior to executing a search warrant or embarking on an eradication mission, (officers) check with the state to see if a particular property owner believed to be in possession of or growing marijuana has a Department of Public Safety-issued medical marijuana certificate." * Medical marijuana patients are held to a seven plant minimum whereas the ordinance has clearly defined twenty-four plants (or twenty four ounces) or fewer as being the lowest law enforcement priority. This law also protects medical marijuana patients from being subject to Police harassment or singular treatment. What is your understanding of the term "lowest law enforcement priority? " Please explain. * Big Island Weekly October 14, 2009 (see appendix) 4 QUESTIONS FOR LINCOLN ASHIDA/ CORPORATION COUNSEL: 1. Have you read the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance in its entirety? 2. It is public record that you have asked for an opinion from the Office of Attorney General regarding the legality of this ordinance. ? Has the Attorney General contacted you about this matter? ? If yes, please state what you have been advised. 3. What advice have you provided the Police Department concerning the implementation of the voter initiative? Please provide details. 4. Two weeks after the ordinance was passed, an "opinion" was posted on the website of the Office of Corporation Counsel titled, "What happens when the council passes laws that are unenforceable?" (see appendix -Web post from the Office of Corporation Counsel posted November 18, 2009) ? Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinances similar to this one, have been successfully implemented in well over two dozen counties or municipalities across the country. On what legal basis would you suggest that this ordinance is `unenforceable'? ? The Council did not pass this law. It was a voter initiative. Why was the web post discussing this voter ordinance incorrectly titled? Please explain. ? Was the "opinion" you have posted in any way a "legal" opinion? If your opinion did not serve a legal purpose, please explain the reason for posting this. 5. In your website "opinion" you posted the following statement: "It may take the determination of a court via a lawsuit (this we welcome) for there to be any movement towards final legal determination." (see appendix -Web post from the Office of Corporation Counsel posted November 18, 2009) ? Please explain why you would welcome a lawsuit concerning the interpretation of the law only two weeks after a voter initiative was passed into law? 5 Appendix: 1. The Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance as it is written in Hawai'i County Code. Pg. 6 2. Letter from Board of Peaceful Sky Alliance to Legislative Auditor regarding an audit of all police activities relating to enforcement of Cannabis/ October 14, 2009 ----------------------Pg. 9 3. Sweep Destroys 5k Plants Hawaii Tribune-Herald, August 28, 2009 ----------------------Pg. 11 4. ACLU Defends Medical Marijuana Big Island Weekly Article October 14, 2009 ----------------------Pg. 12 5. Letter from Board of Peaceful Sky Alliance to Lincoln Ashida re: web post entitled "What happens when the Council passes laws that are `unenforceable'?"l October 14, 2009 Pg.15 6. "Opinion" posted on the Office of Corporation Counsel posted November 18, 2009. Pg. 19 7. Letter from Board of Peaceful Sky Alliance to Lincoln Ashida re: serial obstructions to implementation of Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance. /October 14, 2009 Pg. 20 Article 16/ Hawaii County Code: LOWEST LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIORITY OF CANNABIS ORDINANCE Section 14-96. PURPOSE. The purpose of this article is to: (1) Provide lave enforcement more time and resources to focus on serious crimes; (2) Allow our court systems to run more'efficientl-,(3) Create space in our prisons to hold serious criminals; (4) Save taxpayers money and provide more funding for necessities such as education and health care; and (5) Reduce the fear of prosecution and the-stigma of criminality from non-violent citizens wlzoharmlessly cultivate and/or use cannabis for personal, medicinal. religious, and recreational. purposes. (2008, Ord. No. 08-181, sec. 2.) 14-96 Section 14-97. FINDINGS. (a) The Institute of Medicine has found that cannabis (marijuana) has medicinal value and is not a gateway drug. (b) According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the use of cannabis (marijuana) directly results in zero deaths per year. (c) According to the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), the marijuana eradication program has not stopped cannabis cultivation in the county, rather the program has only decreased the availability of the plant, which increases its "street" value, resulting in more crime. (d) The National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) also reported that a large increase of the use of methamphetamine, crack cocaine, and other hard drugs was related to the marijuana eradication program's implementation. (e) According to public record, the -mandatory program review' for the marijuana eradication program, required by section 3-16 of the County Charter to be performed at least once every four years, has never been performed m the_thirty years that the program has existed. (f) Law abiding adults are being arrested and imprisoned for nonviolent cannabis offenses, clogging our court dockets, overcrowding our prisons, tying up valuable law enforcement resources and costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in Hawaii County alone each year. (g) The citizens of the Cities of Hailey, Idaho; Denver, Colorado; Seattle, Washington; Columbia, Missouri; Eureka Springs, Arkansas and Santa Barbara, Oakland, Santa Monica and Santa Cruz, in California, and the citizens of Missoula County, Montana, all voted for cannabis (marijuana) to be placed as law enforcement's lowest priority within the past five years. (2008, Ord. No. 08-181, sec. 3.) 14-97 Section 14-98. DEFINITIONS. "Adult" means any individual who is twenty one years of age or older. "Adult personal use" means the use of cannabis on private property by adults. It does not include: (1) Distribution or sale of cannabis; (2) Distribution, sale, cultivation, or use of cannabis on public property; (3) Driving under the influence; or (4) The commercial trafficking of cannabis, or the possession of amounts of cannabis in excess of the amounts defined as being appropriate for adult personal use.. "Marijuana", (as defined in the Hawaii Revised Statutes of Chapter 712-1240) means cannabis. "Cannabis" means all parts of the cannabis plant, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof, the resin extracted from any part of the cannabis plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or its resin. "Lowest Law Enforcement Priority" means a priority such that all law enforcement activities related to all offenses other than the possession or cultivation of cannabis for adult personal use shall be a higher priority than all law enforcement activities related to the adult personal use of cannabis. The Lowest Law Enforcement Priority regarding possession or cultivation of cannabis shall apply to any single case involving twenty four or fewer cannabis plants at any stage of maturity or the equivalent in dried cannabis, where the cannabis was intended for adult personal use. The "dried equivalent" of twenty four or fewer cannabis plants shall be presumed to be twenty four or fewer ounces of usable cannabis, excluding stems and other non active parts. A greater amount may also fall under the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority provisions described herein if such amount is shown by competent evidence to be no more than the dried equivalent of twenty four plants. (2008, Ord. No. 08-181, sec. 4.) 14-98 Section 14-99. LOWEST LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIORITY POLICY RELATING TO THE ADULT PERSONAL USE OF CANNABIS. (a) The cultivation, possession and use for adult personal use of cannabis shall be the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority for law enforcement agencies in the county. (b) The council, the police commissioner, the chief of police and all associated law enforcement staff, deputies, officers and any attorney prosecuting on behalf of the county shall make law enforcement activity relating to cannabis offenses, where the cannabis was intended for adult personal use, their Lowest Law Enforcement Priority. Law enforcement activities relating to cannabis offenses include but are not limited to the prosecution . involving Personal use of canna. Wbis. oc Neither the chic fo f police, they t police commissioner, nor an attorney prosecuting on behalf of the count nor any associated law enforcement staff, deputies, nor officers shall seek, accept or renew any formal 1711 informal deputization or commissioning by a federal law enforcement agency for the, purpose of investigating,' citing, or arresting adults, nor for searching or seizing property from adults for cannabis offenses subject to the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of cannabis where such activities would be in violation of that policy, nor,, shall such authorities exercise such powers that may be ancillary to deputization or commissioning for another . purpose. (d) The council shall not authorize the acceptance or the issuing of any funding that is intended be used to,,. investigate, cite, arrest, prosecute, search or seize property from adults for cannabis offenses in a manner" inconsistent,with the countv's Lowest Law Enforcement Priority pli ocy. (2008, Ord. No. 08-181, sec. 5.) 14-99 Section 14-100. COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS. To the full extent allowed by the Constitution of the State of Hawaii, the people, through their county government, request that neither the county prosecuting attorney nor any attorney prosecuting on behalf of the county shall prosecute any violations of the sections of chapter 712-1240 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes regarding possession or cultivation of cannabis in a manner inconsistent with the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority, as described in section 14-98 and 14-99 of this article; in cases where the amount possessed or grown is less than twenty four plants or the dried equivalent, possession for adult personal use shall be presumed. (2008, Ord. No. 08-181, sec. 6.) 14-100 Section 14-101. EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR CANNABIS ENFORCEMENT. (a) Neither the council, nor the police commissioner, nor the chief of police, nor any attorneys prosecuting on behalf of the county, nor any associated law enforcement staff, deputies, or officers shall spend or authorize the expenditure of any public funds for the investigation, arrest, or prosecution of any person, nor for the search or seizure of any property in a manner inconsistent with the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority as defined in section 14-98 and 14-99 of this article. (b) The council shall not support the acceptance of any funds for the marijuana egad' tion"program. (2008, Ord. No. 08-181, sec. 7.) 14-101 Section 14-102. COMMUNITY OVERSIGHT. The council shall ensure the timely implementation of this chapter by working with the chief of police and/or the police commissioner to: receive grievances from individuals who believe that they were subjected to law procedures enforcement activity contrary to the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of cannabis, which is described in section 14-98 and 14-99 of this article; and.. (2) Publish a report semi-annually on the implementation of this chapter every first day of June and everv first day__of December, from this day forward, with the first report being issued June 1, 2009. =These reports shall include but not be limited to: the number of all arrests, citations, property seizures, and prosecutions for all cannabis offenses in the county, the number of complaints regarding marijuana eradication over-flights; the breakdown of all cannabis arrests and citations by race, age, specific charge, and classification as in fraction.(--_ misdemeanor, or felony, the estimated time and money spent by the county on law-enforcement and punishment for adult cannabis offenses. and any instances of officers or deputies assisting in slate or federal enforcement of adult cannabis offenses. These reports shall be published with the cooperation of the county prosecuting attorney, the chief of police, and all associated law enforcement staff in providing needed data. (2008, Ord. No. 08-181, sec. 8.) 14-102 § 14-103 HAWAII COUNTY CODE 8 Section 14-103. NOTIFICATION OF LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL OFFICIALS. (a) After the enactment of this article, the county clerk shall send letters on an annual basis (every June 1 st of each year) to the mayor of the county, the county of Hawaii voters' Congressional *Delegation, Hawai`i's U.S. senators, the county of Hawaii voters' representatives in the Hawaii State Legislature, the Governor of Hawaii, and the President of the United States. This letter shall state; "The citizens of the County of Hawaii have passed an initiative to make Cannabis offenses the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority, where the Cannabis is intended for adult personal use, and request that the federal and state branches of government remove criminal penalties for the cultivation, possession and use of Cannabis for adult personal use; the citizens also request that Cannabis policies here within the county of Hawaii be dealt with from our local law enforcement only." The letters may also state, be it the will of the county council; that according to the three year study performed by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, more people used methamphetamine as a result of the marijuana eradication program; they may also express that methamphetamine is a growing problem in our community and more help would be appreciated in that area, and that the first action that would help in that area would be to end the marijuana eradication program. (b) This duty shall be carried out until state and federal laws are changed accordingly. (2008, Ord. No. 08-181, sec. 9.) 14-103 Section 14-104. STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION. All provisions in this article shall only be implemented to the full extent that the Constitution of the State of Hawaii and the Hawaii Revised Statutes allows, and in the event, and only in the event, that a court of competent jurisdiction determines that any provision in any section of this article may not be directed by voter initiative or by action of the council, then that specific mandatory provision only shall be deemed advisory and expression of the will of the people that the provision shall be implemented into law by whichever government branch or official who has the power to implement it, and that the council shall take all actions within their power to work with those branches of government to express the will of the people and encourage, support, and request the implementation of those provisions. (2008, Ord. No. 08-181, sec. 10.) 14-104 Section 14-105. SEVERABILITY. In the event, and only in the event, that a court of competent jurisdiction should find one or more of the sections, or parts of the sections of this article illegal, or any provision of this article or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the article and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. (2008, Ord. No. 08-181, sec. 11.) 14-105 9 .i... _ t... 't Ms. Colleen Schrandt Office of the Legislative Auditor 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 October 14, 2009 Re: Request for audit of all police activities relating to enforcement of Cannabis policies in Hawai'i County Dear Ms. Schrandt; Aloha. An amended report presented to Council September 10, 2009 titled `ADDENDUM TO LOWEST LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIORITY OF CANNABIS STATISTICS FOR PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 2008 TO MAY 2009 MEMORANDUM DATED MAY 29, 2009'. This report was to have included the "...the estimated time and money spent by the County on law enforcement and punishment for adult Cannabis offenses." HCC §14- 101. The report states that from November 2008 through May 2009 there were 291 "service calls" made relating to all marijuana offenses in Hawai'i County, and concluded that this "represents approximately .0275852483% of the total HPD budget." The Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance requires the Hawai'i Police Department to provide statistical data for all police activities relating to adult cannabis offenses in the County of Hawai'i pertaining to each bi-annual reporting period. As of this date, the report required June 1, 2009 remains incomplete. The report includes the following statement: "...As previously indicated in our initial memorandum, the HPD does not possess the ability to breakdown with absolute certainty the specific amount of time and money expended by the County of Hawai'i on the enforcement and punishment of marijuana offenses..." It is of concern to our organization that in the same report it was also stated that "...Future memorandums relating to the lowest law enforcement priority of Cannabis Statistics will use the same methodology..." It is of concern to the Board of Peaceful Sky Alliance that the "Findings" as per Section 14-102 of the County Charter clearly state that: According to public record, the `mandatory program review' for the marijuana eradication program, required by Section 3-16 of the County Charter to be performed at least once every 4 years, has never been performed in the 30 years that the program has existed. HCC §14-102 (a) FINDINGS For 30 years there has not been an adequate review process and accountability for public money spent on these programs. For this reason is important that procedures are implemented to allow the Hawaii County Police Department to account for the costs of marijuana eradication and all police -activity relating to enforcement of adult Cannabis policy in Hawai'i County. Without these procedures, it is impossible to evaluate the programs and it is impossible for Hawai'i County Police Department to establish that they are in full compliance with the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance. For the reasons stated above, an audit by your office is requested. The audit should include the Hawai'i County Police Department Vice-Section, and any involvement of other Hawai'i County Police Department personnel involved in the enforcement of adult Cannabis policies in Hawai'i County. 10 The requested audit is necessary in order to detennine "the estimated time and money spent by the County on law enforcement and punishment for adult Cannabis offenses." HCC §14-101 Peaceful Sky Alliance represents approximately 35,000 voters who passed this ballot measure into "County law." We thank you, in advance, for your attention to this matter as this is of importance to the community. A prompt reply to this letter is anticipated. Mahalo and Aloha, Wolf Daniel Braun President of Peaceful Sky Alliance cc: Hawai'i County Council Chair and Members cc: Mr. William T. Takaba, Managing Director, Hawai'i County cc: Mr. Harry Kubojiri, Police Chief, Hawai'i County enc: Copy of report to Council from Police Chief Harry Kubojiri: LOWEST LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIORITY OF CANNIBIS(sic) STATISTICS FOR THE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 2008 TO MAY 2009 enc: Copy of ADDENDUM TO LOWEST LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIORITY OF CANNABIS STATISTICS FOR PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 2008 TO MAY 2009 MEMORANDUM DATED MAY 29,2009 ' 11 Sweeps destroy 5K pot plants by John Burnett Tribune-Herald Staff Writer Published Friday, August 28, 2009 9:16 AM HST Multiple police departments, feds join in eradication Police say "Counter Cannabis" marijuana eradication missions were flown over the Big Island last week. According to Lt. Richard Sherlock of Hilo Vice Section, a total of 4,994 plants from seedlings to 8-feet in height were uprooted "mostly in upper Puna and some in lower Puna," on Aug. 17 and 18. Sherlock said plants were removed "from commercial and vacant lands." Lt. Miles Chong of Kona Vice Section said that "over 500 plants" in the same size range were pulled in West Hawaii during a half-day mission Aug. 19. "We concentrated on the South Kona, North Kona and South Kohala districts," Chong said. No arrests were made. "As usual, it was an interagency mission," Sherlock said. He added that support was provided by the Honolulu, Maui and Kauai police departments, the federal Drug Enforcement Administration and the Hawaii National Guard's Counterdrug Support Program. Kauai police assisted only on the East side. Sherlock said the other counties' officers provided support, including rappelling, to Big Island police. Two private helicopters, plus one from the DEA and one from National Guard, were used, Sherlock and Chong said. Funding came from the Big Island's $159,000 portion of a statewide marijuana eradication grant provided by the federal government in the fiscal year that ended June 30, Sherlock said. Voters last November passed a law making adult personal use of marijuana the lowest law enforcement priority. The "Peaceful Sky" ordinance also stipulates that the County Council "shall not support the acceptance of any funds for the marijuana eradication program." There is no eradication earmark in the current county budget. "This is leftover money that W as secured prior to the 'lowest-priority' initiative," Sherlock said. "When... the ballot '(initiative) was passed, we didn't do anymore eradication until we received clearance to use the leftover funds. Sherlock said he didn't know if the decision to use the leftover money was made by Chief Harry Kubojiri or if the council or Mayor Billy Kenoi were consulted. Kubojiri was off-island Thursday. An early afternoon call to his cell phone was not returned in time 'for this story. Both Sherlock and Chong said that in accordance with the new law, no plots of 24 or fewer plants on private property were eradicated. Chong said that two patches of fewer than 24 plants 'were pulled up on public land in West I lawaii' Sherlock said that the department received three complaints about the raids on Aug. 17 and two on Aug. 18. Chong said that three complaints were fielded Aug. 19. The law requires a more detailed written report from police to the council by Sept. 18.' "The other details we'll give the County Council are the numbers of plants and from what areas, the number of patches in those areas and such," Sherlock said. The report will also detail specific complaints and location of callers, as well as the exact West Hawaii plant count. 'Sherlock said there is money remaining for future eradication. E-mail John Burnett at,iburnettCd)hawaiitribune-herald.com. Big hlan, Weekly ACLU Defends Medical Marijuana By Tiffany Edwards Hunt Wednesday, October 14, 2009 10:41 AM HST The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Hawai'i has put the Hawaii County Council on notice that police helicopter flyovers for marijuana eradication are believed to be in violation of the Hawaii Constitution, the state's medical marijuana law, and the county's Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance. "We are particularly concerned that the Hawaii County Police Department (HCPD) is violating individuals' privacy under Article I, S6 of the Hawaii Constitution, along with the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance passed last year, and that HCPD may also be violating state law bye targeting medical ;marijuana patients during these 'marijuana eradication' efforts," ACLU of Hawaii Senior Staff Attorney Daniel Gluck wrote the council's Committee on Public Safety and Parks & Recreation on Oct. 6. The two- page letter was submitted as testimony to police's Marijuana Eradication Report for August 2009. Police Chief Harry Kubojiri refuted the claim that police are targeting medical marijuana patients. "I'm going to repeat, because I've said it before, the Hawaii Police Department is not targeting medical marijuana patients during eradication missions," Kubojiri said. He maintained that police are in compliance with the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance, spending "one-fourth of one percent" of their time and resources on marijuana, which, in his mind, illustrates the drug is a low priority for police. "On the other hand, I don't expect my officers nor am I directing my officers to ignore marijuana that they come across incidental to other investigations that they might be doing," Kubojiri said. The police chief pointed out that according to the state and federal laws marijuana is still illegal, and the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance does not legalize marijuana. The purpose of marijuana eradication missions is "marijuana suppression, anti-commercial cultivation, anti-trafficking, and anti -distri bution of illicit substances, more specifically marijuana," he said. Meanwhile, Judith Mura, a resident of La'akea Farm Lots in Puna, affirmed Gluck's charge that the helicopter flyovers are "extraordinarily invasive for law-abiding Big Island residents." She recalled a recent flyover involving a Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) helicopter and second helicopter that they had chartered. The helicopters flew what she estimates to be "10 feet" above her house before landing on a private road in her Puna subdvision near Isaac Kepo'okalani Hale Beach Park, also known as Pohoiki. "Luckily I had removed the plastic from my greenhouse, otherwise it would have been torn to shreds it was that close," said Mura, noting three of her neighbors came out to yell at the helicopter pilots and learn that one of the helicopters had an oil leak. The DEA helicopter flew off after 15 minutes, and the chartered helicopter said to have an oil leak sat grounded for a couple of hours before the pilot resumed flight. 13 "I was just so scared that they could have torn off the roof of my house," Mura said. "If my sheep were out in the field, they could have scared my animals away. "If I was caught driving that recklessly on the road, they would have thrown my butt in jail," she said. When Mura called police to make a report about the low-flying helicopters, the officer who took her report inquired, "Did they find anything?" "I said, 'This is not about them finding anything,"' Mura recalled. To her, this is about police engaging in illegal searches by recklessly flying helicopters so low that they endanger private property. "On a daily basis, it makes me feel like I'm being invaded," Mura said of the helicopter fly-overs. "It makes criminals out of innocent people. People get disturbed, even those of us without having marijuana in our yards. It makes you wonder what it is like when you are growing. She noted the medical marijuana patients she knows who are growing. "They get so scared, and these people are legal. I mean, your heart rate changes when they start to fly." While Gluck's letter doesn't refer specifically to the incident to whic_h_Mura referred, it refers to another incident in March in which DEA -Ind HCPD "flew over one resident's home four times, landed in hi' neighbor's yard, and spent well over an hour hovering just a few dozen feet above his home." DEA and HCPD had raided that same resident's home in September 2008, despite the resident's "full compliance with ;Hawaii's medical marijuana laws." i"During that raid, government officials refused to show identification and failed to produce a warrant," Gluck wrote. "They have not produced a warrant to this date, despite breaking a fence to gain entry to the property They seized his iarijuana and, as a result, his health has suffered enormously. These actions by HCPD are simply unacceptable: this particular resident is a seriously ill medical marijuana patient, and the fly-overs' cause him extraordinary distress which he fears may lead to a heart attack or a seizure. His poor health simply _cannot take the level of harassment and strain brought on by HCPD." Kubojiri maintained that police, prior to executing a search warrant or embarking on an eradication mission, ;check with the state to see if a particular property owner believed to be in possession of or growing marijuana has a Department of Public Safety-issued medical marijuana certificate. "Quite honestly, I'm unaware of the specific incident being alleged in the letter," Kubojiri said. "The most I can do is have someone looking into the allegation." Dominic Yagong, who is now chair of the Council's Public Safety and Parks & Recreation Committee after the highly-publicized reorganization, is concerned about allegations that police are targeting medical marijuana patients. "My main concern has always been those patients who use marijuana for medical reasons," Yagong said. "It saddens me when you hear of them either being raided or in their description being harassed, and I hope there is a way we can single out these medical marijuana patients, so they can live their lives without being raided." Yagong noted that medical marijuana patients should not be bothered, so long as they have no more plants than the medical marijuana law allows them. "If they go beyond those limits, they should face the wrath of the law," Yagong said. "It's like going to a pharmacy. They will only issue the amount of the prescription. You need to stay within the perimeters. The problem I hear is even people within those limits are being harassed and raided. And that's where I have a problem." ' Gluck said in an email to the Big Island Weekly that ACLU of Hawaii wants to see council members, the 14 Mayor's office, and Hawaii County police working together "to best effectuate the voters' wishes in passing the lowest law enforcement ordinance last year." "In addition, as soon as a new U.S. Attorney for Hawaii is confirmed, the Council, the Mayor's office, and HCPD should contact her and take proactive steps to ensure that Hawaii's medical cannabis patients are protected," Gluck_wrote. Kubojiri, Yagong, and Council Chair J Yoshimoto all expressed the need for some sort of clarification of the conflicting county, state and federal laws from an authority outside Hawaii County. "I believe the state Attorney General should weigh in on this issue, so we can get some clarity," Yoshimoto said. "We should get some guidance, so we know what the public should expect, as well as law enforcement." Yoshimoto seemed to recall that the county administration planned to seek out an opinion from the Attorney General on the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance. He planned to follow up with Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida, before he himself writes a letter to the Attorney General. Kubojiri said Prosecutor Jay Kimura has requested an opinion from the Attorney General, but he wasn't aware on Sunday afternoon if one had been received yet. Calls to Kimura's cell phone were not returned by pres time. "We need everybody to understand what is government doing with respect to this law, so there is a clear understanding and expectation," Yagong said of the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance. "In a nutshell, we passed a law and everyone has their interpretation of the law. A lot depends on the law enforcement interpretation, and their understanding and expectation of the general public," he said. "The problem is the state law says marijuana is legal for certain segments of population. It conflicts with the federal law, so that certainly leads to conflicts for that segment of the community. It does create a challenge for our law enforcement agency, as well. So, I don't know what needs to be done to clear up the issue. But as long as the federal law says (marijuana) is illegal, it is going to be very difficult to pick and choose when you enforce and when you don't." In noting the need for clarity, Kubojiri pointed to a "White Paper on Marijuana Dispensaries" written in April 2009 by the California Police Chief Association's Task Force on Marijuana Dispensaries. The 49-page document concludes, "No state has the power to grant its citizens the right to violate federal law. People have been, and continue to be, federally prosecuted for marijuana crimes. The authors of this White Paper conclude that medical marijuana is not legal under federal law, despite the current California scheme, and wait for the United States Supreme Court to ultimately rule on the issue." Mura, meanwhile, believes marijuana eradication, and prohibition in general, is "a lost cause." "God knows it's a lost cause. Prohibition just doesn't work. Even God said, 'don't eat from the knowledge of good and evil,' and they still did. Prohibition doesn't work. It costs too much money to persecute people," she said, noting she meant to say "prosecute" not persecute. "It costs way too much money to prosecute people. These are taxpayers' dollars. Using our tax dollars to prosecute us, to create all this, and we don't want it. I'm not a pot smoker, I'm not a pot grower. I know the friends I have that smoke herb are really nice people, so I feel like they're going after the wrong thing. I don't even think it's good for our economy that they do this. The money they spend could have gone to other departments to schools or to the library. Why is it that our tax dollars can't go to something that is creative like that, rather than eradication of something that is not bad for people?" 15 NV i C~ fir Mr. Lincoln Ashida Office of Corporation Counsel 101 Aupuni Street Suite 325 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 October 14, 2009 Re: Website entry entitled "What happens when the Council passes laws that are `unenforceable'?" Dear Mr. Ashida, Aloha. Our organization is advocating on behalf of the 35,000 voters who passed the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance and all Hawai'i residents affected by the helicopter flyovers for marijuana eradication missions on the Big Island. We are concerned to find on your website an opinion published on November 18, 2008 after the successful passage of "Ballot Question I- The Peaceful Sky Initiative." You titled this entry What happens when the Council passes laws that are 'unenforceable'? In publishing this "opinion" you have masked the fact that this ordinance is now a County Law and is deserving of all the respect and diligence required of all Hawai'i County Officials and Law Enforcement Officers. We find the following problems with your argument as it is presented on your website: 1.The "opinion" you published stated that County laws are subservient to State and Federal laws that conflict with it. We do not find this an adequate interpretation of Constitutional law that defines independent jurisdiction of local authorities where local laws are concerned. 2.You also asserted an "opinion" that this law cannot be "enforced" by Hawai'i County Police Department and in so doing you ignore the fact that this law is not as concerned with "enforcement" as it is with providing guidelines for all County officials and departments in order that it is "implemented". This law is primarily a directive and concerns the development of new policies and procedures for the Police Department and other branches of County Government. 3.In addition, you express an "opinion" that the Legislative Branch cannot direct "day-to-day" operations of Executive Branch departments. We also find this to be erroneous and not based in fact. Clearly where an ordinance directs new policy, the Legislative Branch must be involved in the process of oversight and implementation. 4.The title of your post is misleading because it implies that this was a law created by Council resolution and not by ballot initiative. The fact that your "opinion" was posted two weeks after the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance became law appears to have created an obstruction to the effective "implementation" of this law. '16 This fact is of great concern to our organization and we believe this fact is also a matter of concern to the 35,000 voters who passed this ballot initiative into law. 1.The assertion that County Laws are "subservient to Federal and State Laws" is not a valid argument against the implementation of Lowest Law Enforcement Priority, of Cannabis Ordinance: You stated that: With respect to the marijuana initiative, concerns regarding the Federal and State preemption remain. "Preemption" is the legal doctrine that generally provides that local County Laws will always be subservient to Federal and State laws that conflict with it. Since marijuana in any quantity remains illegal under both Federal and State law, arguably the County cannot pass any law that would prevent the police from enforcing it. In fact, an argument could be made that it would necessarily result in the police violating their oath of office to simply "look the other way" in an effort to enforce the County initiative. We note with interest a recently published story in the Hawaii Tribune Herald (October 8, 2009) that suggests a far clearer interpretation of the ordinance based on constitutional law. The story entitled Pot Gains in California (see attached) discusses the likely scenario of a ballot initiative in California's next election in 2010 that proposes to legalize Cannabis in the State of California and make it available for sale through licensed outlets. It is significant that the report ends with the following statement: Some legal scholars and policy analysts say the government will not be able to require California to help in enforcing the federal marijuana ban if the state legalizes the drug. Without assistance from the state's legions of narcotics officers, they say, federal agents could do little to curb marijuana. "Even though that federal ban is still in place and the federal government can enforce it, it doesn't mean the states have to follow suit," said Robert Mikos, a Vanderbilt University law professor." Nothing can stop federal anti-drug agents from making marijuana arrests, even if Californians legalize pot, he said. However, the U.S. government cannot pass a law requiring local and state police, sheriff's departments or state narcotics enforcers to help. In publishing an "opinion" entitled What happens when the Council passes laws that are `unenforceable'? you have ignored the fact that as the constitution is written, Federal law, while the "highest law of the land," does not overrule laws passed by States or local ordinances such as the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance. 2. Your assertion that this law cannot be "enforced" by Hawai'i County Police Department is an erroneous interpretation: We would like to draw your attention to the fact that this law is a directive by voter initiative for significant changes in County policy. The initiative that is now law provides a directive to all County officials and departments, including the Mayor, that change is required by the voters of Hawai'i County as follows: (1) Provide law enforcement more time and resources to focus on serious crimes: (2) Allow our court systems to run more efficiently: (3) Create space in our prisons to hold serious criminals: (4) Save taxpayers money and provide more funding for necessities such as education and health care: and... (5) Reduce the fear of prosecution and the stigma of criminality from non-violent citizens who harmlessly cultivate and/or use cannabis for personal, medicinal, religious, and recreational purposes. HCC § 14-96 PURPOSE When you characterize this law to be about a "conflict" between County and State laws over the possession of Cannabis, you leave aside a very significant aspect of the ordinance which concerns the formulation of policy with regards to "enforcement" and prosecution of adult Cannabis offenses in this county. The ordinance is just as much a directive for the Police Department to "implement" as it is a directive concerning "enforcement" of law. 17 By representing that this law cannot be "enforced" you have ignored the fact that the biggest challenge for this county is that such an ordinance must be "implemented" by County officials at many levels and with the appropriate encouragement and legal advice from your office. Prior to the passage of this ordinance, "enforcement" of Cannabis policy in Hawai'i County involved "surveillance, search, seizure and arrests" of many Cannabis users and costly prosecution and imprisonment. As this ordinance is implemented, we will enjoy the results of money, time and resources being saved by the County. The implementation of policy reform and goal of saving County money should have meant that this ordinance would have your full support and yet we find that you have chosen to ignore the merits of this ordinance. 3.Your "opinion" that the Ordinance has no legal basis because it is concerned with "day-to-day" operations of "Executive Branch Departments" is invalid: You stated that: Generally speaking, the Legislative Branch cannot direct the day-to-day operations of Executive Branch departments. As an organization dedicated to community oversight of the implementation of HCC (§14 -96- et seq.) we strongly object to your interpretation. The duties of the County Council, as enumerated in the Hawai'i County Code, clearly direct policy. The appropriate section reads: Section 3-1. Powers & Functions The legislative powers of the County shall be vested in the county council. Its primary function shall be legislation and public policy formulation, as distinct and separate from the executive administration of county government. We enclose a copy of the letter that the head of the executive branch, Mayor William P. Kenoi, received from the Hawai'i County Clerk. This letter proclaims the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance and the specific requirements that no outside personnel or agencies be involved in handling matters of "Cannabis policies" here in Hawai'i County. This is a clear directive from County Clerk, who serves the legislative branch because this ordinance directs policy in Hawai'i County. Clearly, the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance is a policy decision, not exclusively concerned with the "day-to-day" activities of the Hawai'i County Police Department and the Office of Prosecuting Attorney. Hence, a voter. initiative with powers vested in the legislature for oversight is valid and appropriate. 4.The title of your post is misleading because it implies that this was a law created by Council resolution and not by ballot initiative. Adding discussion of the voter initiative that is now Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance to a discussion about a council resolution concerning genetically engineered taro and coffee is misleading because the title implies that both laws were passed by Council. The Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance should be treated as distinct and separate because it was a ballot initiative passed by voters in the County of Hawai'i. Summary: In publishing the "opinion" on your website titled What happens when the Council passes laws that are unenforceable? you, have failed to recognize that this was a voter directed mandate endorsed by 35,000 people to implement a new policy direction for the entire county. For this reason alone, the "separation of powers" conflict that you have identified does not apply. To date, the County is not yet in compliance with this ordinance. '18 As we read the law, County officials in all departments including the Mayor and the Managing Director are obliged to respect and carry out the policy changes that are prescribed by this voter directed ordinance. It is the responsibility of the Police Department and the Office of the Prosecution Attorney to identify a need for policy reform and for fiscal accountability as it is mandated by the ordinance. It is the responsibility of officials and elected representatives to provide measures of oversight to ensure the ordinance is implemented. Your cooperation is required for the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance to be implemented in full. In publishing your "opinion" you have "clouded the issue" and it appears that your "opinion" may have provided encouragement to our Mayor, Police Department and Prosecuting Attorneys, who are all currently out of compliance with this law. To date we are not aware that you have ever given a public statement favorable to the implementation of Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance in Hawai'i County. We are asking you to correct your previous statements that this law is unenforceable and instead we ask you to make a public statement that shows you are in full support of this ordinance and that you now advise all County Officials to be in full compliance with the ordinance. As the Board of Peaceful Sky Alliance, our remaining questions are to know whether your "opinions" as expressed on the website for the Office of Corporation Counsel are in any way "legal opinions" and whether these are "opinions" you would stand by today? We would appreciate a prompt response to this letter. Mahalo and Aloha, Wolf Daniel Braun President, Peaceful Sky Alliance cc: Hawai'i County Council Chair and Members cc: Mr. William Kenoi, Mayor, Hawai'i County cc: Mr. William Takaba, Managing Director, Hawai'i County enc: copy of website opinion What happens when the Council passes laws that are unenforceable? as it is posted on the website for the Office of Corporation Counsel, Hawai'i County 19 COUNTY OF HAWAI'I OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL From the Desk of Lincoln Ashida Archives What happens when the Council passes laws that are "unenforceable?" There has been significant discussion in our media concerning the enforceability of two new Hawai' i County laws. On November 4, 2008, the voters of our County passed the "lowest law enforcement priority" initiative that mandates that our police make the adult possession of marijuana the lowest law enforcement priority. This initiative also prevents the police from accepting federal and state monies earmarked for drug eradication and anti-drug education. On November 13, 2008, the Hawai' i County Council overrode Mayor Harry Kim's veto of the "GMO" bill. This legislation prevents the genetic modification of taro and coffee in our County; an issue that created divisiveness in our community from those opposed to genetic modification versus proponents of GMO research. After the laws passed, questions turned to enforceability. With respect to the marijuana initiative, concerns regarding the federal and state preemption remain. "Preemption" is the legal doctrine that generally provides that local county laws will always be subservient to federal and state laws that conflict with it. Since marijuana in any quantity remains illegal under both federal and state law, arguably the County cannot pass any law that would prevent the police from enforcing it. In fact, an argument could be made that it would necessarily result in the police violating their oath of office to simply "look the other way" in an effort to enforce the County initiative. Yet another issue with the marijuana initiative is the doctrine of the separation of powers. Generally speaking, the legislative branch cannot direct the day to day operations of executive branch departments. The argument goes that the legislature effectively engages in law enforcement by passing a law that tells the police what laws to enforce aggressively and what laws to make "a low priority." Our office has opined that "you cannot do via initiative what you could not do via ordinance." Thus it is arguable that an initiative that goes too far, like an ordinance that goes too far, may be void as it violates the separation of powers doctrine. With respect to the GMO bill, our office has opined that the Council was within its authority to pass this legislation. Federal and. state law had not preempted any County effort in regulating this activity. The issue of concern is enforceability. How do our police and prosecutors enforce this ban? With the burden of proof in criminal cases being "beyond a reasonable doubt," there is no question some degree of scientific verification and/or corroboration will be necessary in order for this law to have "teeth" via enforcement. No doubt the above two issues have been very contentious for some involved. Despite differing views on these and many issues, I think we all agree we are fortunate to live and work in a democracy that allows for all views to be heard and for matters to be placed before our voters. No matter what side of the fence you may be on, we can all agree to civilly disagree. Although some may disagree with the outcome, there must be respect for the process. As the legal representative of our County government, our pledge is to always respect the will of our voters and to work with our client County departments to implement all legal laws. As indicated above, implementation may not be possible in all cases given legal constraints. It may take the determination of a court via a lawsuit (this we welcome) for there to be any movement towards final legal determination. If you have any questions or comments concerning this article or any matter, please feel free to email our office at Lash ida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call meat (808) 961-8304, extension 118. This message was posted on November 18, 2008, at 12:30 p.m. THIS LINK CAN BE FOUND AT: http://www.co.hawaii.hi.us/ce/arcliives.btm 20 r ye x r z ~ Mr. Lincoln Ashida Office of Corporation Counsel 101 Aupum Street Suite 325 Hilo, Hawai `i 96720 October 14, 2009 RE: Repeated Obstruction to the Implementation of Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance Dear Mr. Lincoln Ashida, Aloha. The Board of Peaceful Sky Alliance is concerned about public statements made by you acting in your capacity as Corporation Counsel for Hawai'i County. Your public statements show an apparent lack of due care to ensure that our County Police Department and other departments in the County of Hawai'i act to fully implement the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance (HCC §14-96 -et seq.). We are an organization established to provide community oversight in the implementation of Lowest Law Enforcement Priority Ordinance here in Hawai'i County. Our goal is to collaborate with all departments and officials of Hawai'i County including the Hawai'i County Council, the Police Department and Office of the Prosecuting Attorney. It is our belief that actions you have taken effectively serve to obstruct the implementation of this ordinance by Hawai'i County Council. We therefore are concerned that the following incidents, as outlined below, show a disregard for this voter initiative: 1. Obstruction in the debate over Resolution 710-08 Hawai'i County Council adopted Resolution 710-08 August 13, 2008 and voted to approve "Ballot Measure Number 1", also known as The Peaceful Sky Initiative, in order that it could be presented to the voters of Hawaii County on Election Day November 4, 2008. On August 13, 2008 before Hawaii County Council voted to adopt Resolution 710-08 and approved Ballot Measure Number 1 to be placed on the ballot, you advised Council members that they may be "liable" if they passed this measure. It was an opinion you sent out by email to council members prior to the Council meeting. When you were questioned about that statement by Council members, you then appeared to withdraw the `advice' to them that they should be concerned with liability. It was noted by those who came to testify in support of the ballot measure that your `advice' appeared to put a potential block in the path of this Ballot Initiative. Subsequent actions you have taken have also served to obstruct the successful implementation of this ordinance and lacks respect for the process. 2. Two Weeks after the ordinance became law, you published an opinion that implied that it was "unenforceable." We are concerned to find an opinion published on the web page of the Office of the Corporation Counsel that is entitled: "What happens when the Council passes laws that are `unenforceable " 21 We are concerned to note that you are on record stating that you believe that the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance is unenforceable because of a conflict due to a `separation of powers' doctrine. On your website you make the following statement: Since marijuana in any quantity remains illegal under both federal and state law, arguably the County cannot pass any law that would prevent the police from enforcing it. In publishing an "opinion" entitled "What happens when the Council passes laws that are `unenforceable'?" you have ignored the fact that as the constitution is written, Federal law, while the "highest law of the land," does not overrule laws passed by States or local ordinances such as the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance. The Peaceful Sky Alliance has sent you a letter providing details that refute your interpretations of constitutional law as being without legal merit. In publishing your "opinion" you have "clouded the issue" and it appears that your opinion may have provided encouragement to our Mayor, Police Department and Prosecuting Attorneys, who are all currently out of compliance with this law. The fact that this "opinion" was published two weeks after the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance became law appears to have created an obstruction on your part to the effective "implementation" of this law. This fact is of great concern to our organization and we believe it is also a matter of concern to the 35,000 voters who passed this ballot initiative into law. 3. Through your direct intervention you prevented Mr. Roger Christie from receiving a hearing with the Hawaii County Police Commission. In November of 2008, inflammatory remarks of then-Police Chief Lawrence Mahuna were published linking "anyone pro-drug as "pro-terrorist." We are aware that many people in the community found these remarks to be offensive. Mr. Roger Christie, a member of our Board of Directors, filed a complaint with the Hawaii County Police Commission concerning Chief Mahuna's remarks and this complaint did not receive a full hearing due to your intervention as Corporation Counsel. You asserted that this matter was not to be heard by the Police Commission because you alleged that you were waiting for an opinion from Hawai'i State Attorney General Mark Bennett as to whether this ordinance is legal. As it has been nearly a year since you publicly deferred to Mr. Bennett's opinion, you have been asked to clarify whether an opinion was ever sought by you from the State Attorney, as none has been made public by your office. 4. Through your direct intervention, you prevented Mr. George Klare & Ms. Barbara Lang from receiving a hearing with the Hawaii County Police Commission. Mr. George Klare and Ms. Barbara Lang (Devaki Klare), Board members of Peaceful Sky Alliance, wrote to the Police Commission concerning police helicopter marijuana eradication missions on March 17, 2009 "and every day after." They filed complaints about flights overhead claiming that the flights contravened the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance. This complaint did not receive a hearing due to your intervention. On April 3, 2009, you wrote to them and explained that the Hawai'i County Police Commission would not hear their complaints as the helicopter flights were conducted by United States Drug Enforcement Agency. On June 1, 2009 Chief Kubojiri reported to Hawaii County Council that Hawaii County Police were involved which constitutes a violation of the ordinance that County Police not be involved in marijuana eradication. It is not apparent from your letter dated April 3, that the matter of Hawai'i County Police involvement in the marijuana eradication missions is of any importance to you in spite of the fact that it remains a violation of the ordinance. You also provided the opinion that Hawaii County Council Resolution 46-01 (adopted by Council March 9, 2001) has been rendered moot and therefore the Police Commission have no further jurisdiction concerning Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance. We find your statement to be erroneous and not based in fact. You have been asked to explain why you gave Mr. Klare and Ms. Lang erroneous information. You have been informed that they are now seeking a hearing with the Hawaii County Police Commission that they were previously denied due to your intervention. '22 In Summary: The above pattern of intervention appears to our Board to be an obstruction to the successful implementation of the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance. We would like to draw your attention to the fact that this law is a directive by voter initiative for significant changes in County policy. The initiative that, is now law communicates to all County officials,and departments, including the Mayor, that change is required by the voters of Hawai'i County. To date, we are not aware that you have given a public statement favorable to the implementation of Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance in Hawai'i County. You have been asked by the Board of the Peaceful Sky Alliance to correct your previous statements that this law is "unenforceable." We again request that you make a public statement that shows full support of this ordinance and that you now advise all County Officials to be in full compliance with the ordinance. Let the record reflect your full support for the new policy directives mandated by this law, and for the law itself. Mahalo and Aloha, Wolf Daniel Braun, President, Peaceful Sky Alliance cc: Hawai'i County Council Chair and Members cc: William P. Kenoi, Mayor, Hawai'i County cc: William T. Takaba, Managing Director, Hawai'i County cc: Hawai'i County Police Commission cc: Mr. Harry Kubojiri, Police Chief, Hawai'i County