Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0572.005 2008-2010 V October 20th, 2009 Public Testimony Aloha and Thank You County Council members for being here today' This discussion is an important first step because action by this council is absolutely necessary in order to effect compliance with the law that was passed 50 weeks ago today. The Hawai'i County Council is specifically directed to take responsibility in five subsections of the `Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance' and is less specifically directed in five other sections and subsections of our new policy. Section 5(d) reads, "The Hawaii County Council shall not authorize the acceptance or the issuing of any funding that is intended to be used in a manner inconsistent with the County's `Lowest Law Enforcement Priority Policy'. Section 7(a) virtually repeats Section 5(d); then Section 7(b) says that "The County Council shall not support the acceptance of any funds for the marijuana eradication program. On Sept. 20th, 2009, the Hawai'i Tribune-Herald reported that police are using money from the DLNR's $475,000 `Cannabis Eradication and Suppression Program' grant. Personally, I feel that a mockery is being made of the power of the County Council and the people it represents because this money was so conveniently granted less than a few weeks after the budget was reviewed and approved. Are you going to allow the power of the council and the will of your constituents to be made a laughing- stock in the Hilo Vice squad? Last spring the County Council introduced a resolution to dis-allow the police's usage of over $400,000 in grant moneys intended for eradication. Therefore, my first suggestion is that any one of you introduce a similar resolution to stop the police's usage of any of the DLNR's $475,000 grant money; and also that this council unanimously support such a resolution since it would then be your legal duty to do so. Moving along to Section 8 of the new law, Section 8 "The Hawai'i County Council shall ensure the timely implementation of this chapter by working with the Chief of Police and/or the Police Commissioner to; Comm. No. S 7°Z' • S Ref. To: p Ref. Date 0 2009 a) provide for procedures to accept grievances from individuals who feel that they were subjected to law enforcement activity contrary to the 'Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance'... " b) publish a report semi-annually on the implementation of this chapter, every first day of June and every first day of December, with the first report being issued June lst, 2 0 0 9.... " To the best of my knowledge, this discussion today is the first of any required actions performed by this council in regards to our new Cannabis Policy. I understand that the police have some grievance procedures in place, however, the law clarifies that 'the County Council shall ensure the timely implementation of this chapter by working with the chief of police...', not for the council to allow the police to perform this action alone. Since no prior action has been performed before today, this council is certainly not in compliance with Section 8 of the new law. Section 8(b) requires that the council work with the police on the semi-annual report. On June 1St, 2009, approximately 500 (half) of a complete report was published. The County Council had no involvement in that report, nor was any action taken to review the incomplete publication. Finally, 12 weeks later, a somewhat-more completed report was published, again, without any assistance or post action performed by the Hawai'i County Council. The Council is indirectly referred to in Section 6, 'The people request, through their county government, that neither the prosecuting attorney nor any attorney prosecuting on behalf of the County of Hawai'i shall prosecute any violations in a manner inconsistent with the 'Lowest Law Enforcement Priority'. However, neither communication nor action by the council has been performed or even been attempted since this law has come to pass. In Section 9 the County Council is given a privelage of modifying the notification required to be sent to Local, State, and Federal officials. Unfortunately, not even an attempted action was performed. My second suggestion is that this council assign the community oversight responsibilities in Section 8, as well as the indirect implications in Section 6 and Section 9 to one of your respected committees by way of resolution; most likely the committee of Public Works and Inter-Governmental Relations. Without any one of you specifically assigned to this task, it creates a situation where each one of you is obligated to all of these responsibilities. In August, the police defined `eradication' to the Hawaii Tribune-Herald as a `mission without any intention to investigate'. On Sept. 20th, 2009, the police admitted to landing on, and seizing property on private property. Every officermust take a mandatory oath to defend the constitution; the oath is not optional! To search private property without a search warrant is a violation of the 4th amendment, it is an invasion of privacy, and it is a broken pre-requisite oath of any officer of the law. The police haven't specifically admitted to searching private property without a search warrant, however, based upon their own public statements, this fact is no longer deniable! Do you know any judge who would sign a search warrant if there is to be no intention to investigate? If officers are unable to keep their pre-required promise to protect and defend the people's civil rights, then they are technically no longer qualified to be an officer of the law, nor to serve ` the people. Mahalo Nui Loa to all of you! Thank you for helping us get this bill on the ballot last year! Please continue to help your constituents by fulfilling your obligations described in this new law. My suggestions are underlined in this letter for easy reference. We're all counting on you. Aloha, Adam Lehmann TMK (3) 1-2-6-35 Kalapana, HI 96778 P.O. Box 1380, Pahoa, HI 96778 (808) 854 - 4230