HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0427.000 1998-2000tv er
ALAN S. KONISHI
County Clerk
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK
County of Hawaii
Hawaii County Building
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
DONALDIKEDA
Deputy County Clerk
CONSTANCE R. KIRIU
Legislative Auditor
August 27, 1999
co
�7
co
C)
C i
c
CD
DD
TO: James Y. Arakaki, Chair
C
t
And Council Members
FROM: Constance R. Kiriu
Legislative Auditor
—
�
RE: Special Study On Federal Grants 96 -DB -13
and LOA 97-39 To The Hawaii County Police Department
Funding Marijuana Eradication
For your information and review, we are transmitting a document entitled Special Study
on Federal Grants 96 -DB -13 and LOA 97-39 To The Hawaii County Police Department
Funding Marijuana Eradication, which was prepared by the Legislative Auditor's Office
at the request of the County Council by its Resolution No. 333-98.
We hope this study provides you with sufficient information about our County Police
Department's role in the Statewide Marijuana Eradication Taskforce and the state and
federal protocols for accountability.
Should you have any questions regarding the study, please feel free to contact me or Rory
Flynn at 961-8386.
Enclosure
Comm. Na �^' 7
File No. REV
Ref. To: F C -
Ref. Date -!M@_17 1998
SPECIAL STUDY
ON
FEDERAL GRANTS 96 -DB -13 and LOA 97-39 TO THE
HAWAII COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT
FUNDING MARIJUANA ERADICATION
1997-1998
A Report to the Hawai'i County Council
August, 1999
Office of the Legislative Auditor
County of Hawai'i
OVERVIEW
SPECIAL STUDY ON FEDERAL GRANTS
96 -DB -L3 AND LOA 97-39 TO THE
HAWAII COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT
FUNDING MARIJUANA ERADICATION, 1997-1998
Summary
This special study was conducted in response to Hawai'i County Council Resolution
Number 338-98 adopted December 23, 1998. The resolution requested the Legislative
Auditor to conduct a special study of the Hawaii County Police Department's
Grant No. 96 -DB -13 with the State Attorney General and Letter of Agreement (LOA)
No. 97-39 with the Drug Enforcement Administration of the U.S. Department of justice,
both of which fund the County's annual eradication of illicitly cultivated marijuana.
This special study attempts to provide the Council with comprehensive background
information about a longstanding and "high profile' multi -jurisdictional law enforcement
initiative and an examination of the six objectives set forth in the Resolution. We hope this
special study will furnish the Council with sufficient factual information to assist in its
future decisions. At the minimum, the roadmap for program responsibility and oversight
has been drawn.
Summary Findings
Objective #1: Goals and Obiectives
♦ The Hawai'i County Police Department has met the stated goals for Grant
96 -DB -13 and LOA 97-39, which deal with the suppression of marijuana
cultivation resulting in reduced product availability. This is shown in the
Department's reporting tools and in the expreased satisfaction of the State
Attorney General and the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Project activities addressed all of the nine objectives stated in Grant 96 -DB -13 and
four of the five objectives outlined in LOA 97.39. The one activity not
undertaken—submittal of marijuana samples to the University of Mississippi
Cannabis Project—was not considered important by DEA, the grantor agency.
f
The use of grant funds has effectively enabled the Hawaii County Police
Department to eradicate substantial amounts of marijuana and uncover large scale
cultivation operations. Grant -funded activities also led to the recovery of
processed marijuana, seizures of other dangerous drugs, cash, weapons, arrests and
prosecution for drug-related offenses.
♦ We found that two instances of an admitted clerical error resulting in miscounts of
eradicated marijuana point to the need for a written reconciliation procedure for
the daily tally of marijuana plants eradicated by Task Force personnel during field
missions. The recopt liation procedure should assure that plant counts reported
on Evidence and Property Reports are verified prior to issuance of required grant
statistical reports and eventual annual cumulative reporting by the Department of
Attorney General and the DEA. The procedure should specify how marijuana
seized as a result of search warrants is added to the overall count of plants
attributed to grant -supported eradication activity.
♦ The Police Department has executed all performance requirements. An
examination of "the effectiveness of each grant program" is somewhat hindered by
a lack of well-defined and quantifiable measurements and benchmarks. However,
federal implementation of a newly developed Performance Management of
Effectiveness (PME) System should address this concern in the future.
♦ The Police Department has benefited from the coordination, personnel, and
resources afforded by the Statewide Marijuana Eradiation Task Force.
Qbiective #2: Expenditures Consistent with Budget
• RE: Grant 96 -DB -13 - Expenditures were made by the Police Department in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the grant.
• RE: Grant 96 -DB -13 -Meuse of $ 36,098 of the Police Department's Salaries and
Wages to generate the 25% match is prudent and appropriate. This match
represents a little over one-tenth of 1% of total Police Department expenditures
($28,409,124) in FY97-98.
♦ RE: LOA 97.39 — Expenditures were made in allowable expense categories as
defined by the letter of agreement.
• RE: LOA 97-39 — Because no County funds were attributed to the activities
supported by LOA 97-39, the supplemental funding of $245,000 augmented the
existing public safety initiatives of the Police Department.
♦ RE: Grants 96 -DB -13 and LOA 97-39 - The Police Department has complied
with all financial reporting requirements specified by the grants, including the
submittal of the County of Hawai7 Single Audit Rcports for the Fiscal Ycars
Ending june 30, 1997and 1998, as required by federal code.
Obiective #3: Compliance With Obligations
♦ The Police Department has complied with the required obligations, certifications,
applicable laws, regulations, and provisions of grant contracts and funding
agreements supporting the activities of the Statewide Marijuana Eradication Task
Force and the Domestic Cannabis Eradication/ Suppression Program. We Find no
evidence of non-compliance reported by the grantor agencies, the Department of
the Attorney General and the Drug Enforcement Administration, respectively.
Obiective #4: Intemal Controls and Procedures for Confiscated Marijuana
and Cash Evidence
♦ The Police Department has established internal controls for the interim security
and final destruction of marijuana confiscated during field operations, for
controlled substances seized and held as evidence, and for cash seized in
conjunction with controlled substances investigations.
♦ We suggest that procedures observed for the tally of marijuana plants confiscated
during field missions, including its final disposal, be incorporated into the Hawai'i
County Police Department's written 'Procedures for Marijuana Eradiation
Operations."
Objective #5: Intemal Controls and Procedures for Public Complaints About
Aerial Activities
♦ The Police Department has developed response and disposition procedures for
handling public complaints related to grant -related aerial activities in an internal
manual called 'Procedures for Marijuana Eradication Operations.'
• To the extent verification can be made, the Police Department has followed their
written procedures.
Obiective #6: Grant Trends from 1994-1998
♦ Federal grants to the Police Department from 1994 through 1998 have
substantially aided law enforcement efforts to reduce and deter illicit marijuana
cultivation throughout the State of Hawai'i. Moreover, the perseverance of
eradication efforts appears to have reduced export of Hawaii -grown marijuana to
iv
the continental United States. These achievements are acknowledged by
independent analysis.
♦ The organization and activities of the Statewide Marijuana Eradication Task Force
have:
(1) Helped to develop a statewide network of trained, skilled law enforcement
officers experienced in cannabis eradication techniques and multi -jurisdictional
resource coordination;
(2) Successfully contained growing activity in Hawaii, particularly in comparison
to the period from 1986 through 1991;
(3) Markedly improved public safety in remote areas, public parks and trails,
particularly in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, where the vigilance of park
personnel and the threat of federal prosecution has lessened cultivation
ventures;
(4) Periodically disrupted large and sophisticated outdoor and indoor growing
operations aimed at off -island market distribution; and
(5) Resulted in significant seizures of weapons, as well as other dangerous drugs.
♦
Occasional 6-Axepancies in the public reporting of the eradicated marijuana plants
point to the need for coordination and diligence by the Police Department and the
Department of the Attorney General. We believe that the errors were clerical
and administrative in nature and in no way reflect upon the integrity of
confiscation and disposal performed by county law enforcement personnel.
Accordingly, we encourage the member agencies of the Statewide Marijuana
Eradication Task Force to address the accuracy, thoroughness and consistency of
program report data.
♦ The Police Department has historically fulfilled its obligations respective to grant
requirements as determined by the State Attorney General and the Drug
Enforcement Administration. Therefore, the performance of the Police
Department merits the confidence of the County Council respective to future
acceptance of federal grant funds.
OVERALL
Finally, we recommend that the Department of the Attorney General and the U.S. Drug
Enforcement Administration, as the lead agencies responsible for funding, planning, policy
direction and administration of drug control activities in Hawaii, collaboratively produce
an annual written report on the activities and accomplishments of the Statewide Marijuana
v
Eradication Task Force. Publication of a report consolidating statistical data, mission
reports, operational procedures, training activities, expenditures of member agencies, and
measurable performance indicators now directed by Public Law IOS-277 will greatly assist
members of the public, elected officials, other government agencies, and private
professionals concerned with drug control and public health outcomes.
CONCLUSION
The Hawaii County Council, in accepting U.S. Department of justice federal grants from
the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of justice Assistance, has asked the
Legislative Auditor to determine if the Hawaii County Police Department has effectively
met the stated goals, objectives and obligations of the grants, spent grant monies as
authorized by the grantor agencies, and observed internal controls for the disposition of
confiscated marijuana, cash seizures and public complaints. To each of these inquiries, we
answer in the affirmative.
While we have endeavored to fulfill the study objectives outlined in Council Resolution
No. 338-98, we admit that our findings lack statutory authority and any recommendations
are purely advisory. Essentially, this study has been performed outside the scope of the
County's jurisdiction.
For many years, the County Council has provided a forum for dL%vuion and debate about
ongoing law enforcement efforts to eradicate and deter illegal marijuana cultivation in
Hawai'i County. However, the Hawai'i County Council has neither an assigned statutory
role in program formulation nor oversight of multi -jurisdictional law enforcement task
forces. These functions are carried out by federal and state law enforcement agencies.
Therefore, with respect to the operational activities of the Statewide Marijuana Eradication
Task Force, the proper forum for public discussion is the Department of the Attorney
General and its advisory committee on crime during the annual development process of
Byrne Grant funding proposals. With respect to federal and state laws governing
scheduled drugs and drug-related offenses, the suitable forum for citizens' concerns are the
United States Congress and the Hawai'i State Legislature.
vi
Foreword
This special study was conducted in response to Hawaii County Council Resolution
No. 338-98 adopted December 23, 1998. The resolution requested the Legislative
Auditor to conduct a special study of the Hawai'i County Police Department's Grant
96 -DB -13 with the State Attorney General and Grant 97-39 with the Drug Enforcement
Administration of the U.S. Department of justice.
This study examines the overall effectiveness of each grant program; reviews grant
expenditures; assesses compliance by the Hawai'i County Police Department with grant
obligations; checks Police Department internal controls and procedures for confiscation
and disposal of marijuana and cash evidence; reviews Police Department response and
disposition procedures relating to public complaints of aerial surveillance activities; and
documents levels of expenditures and levels of performance reported for each grant since
1994.
We wish to express our appreciation for the cooperation and assistance extended to us by
the officials, officers and staff of the Hawai'i County Police Department, Department of
the Attorney General, Drug Enforcement Administration, and others who provided
information.
Constance R. Kiriu
Legislative Auditor
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Background................................................................................ 1
Scopeand Objectives..................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 2: OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL GRANTS
Multi -Jurisdictional Organization of Marijuana Eradication in Hawaii ................... 3
BJA Byrne Memorial Formula Grant Program ............................................ 4
Determination of Funding and Responsibility for Byrne Memorial
Formula Grant Program Oversight and Review ...................................... 7
DEA Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program ............................. IS
Future Federal Direction of Drug Supply Reduction Strategies and
Performance Measurements........................................................... 18
CHAPTER 3: GOALS, OBJECTIVES, PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
96 -DB -13 Grant Application and Project Budget ........................................ 21
Goals, Objectives and Performance Indicators for Grant 96 -DB -13 ..................... 23
Grant Project 97-39 (DEA Letter of Agreement) ........................................ 24
CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF SIX SPECIAL STUDY AREAS
I. Prooram EReetivenes 8 Satisfaction of Stated Goals and Obj ctiv s
Organization of Counter -Cannabis Field Operations .....................................
26
Reports Submitted for Grant %-DB.13..................................................
28
Reports Submitted for Letter of Agreement 97.39 ......................................
31
Examination of Statistical Reporting......................................................
33
Significant Investigations, Arrests and Seizures ...........................................
34
Task Force Meetings and Training........................................................
36
Project Oversight and Monitoring........................................................
37
Findings Re: Study Objective # 1 ........................................................
38
2- ExaminationofGrant Expsnditures
Financial Review of Project 96 -DB. 13, April-1997—June, 1998 .......................
40
Financial Review of Letter of Agreement 97-39, January—December, 1997 ..........
45
Findings Re: Study Objective #2 .........................................................
49
a. % omRuance wstn t,rant upligitions
Grant Obligations for Grant %-DB-13................................................... So
Obligations for Letter of Agreement 97.39 .............................................. S2
Findings Re: Study Objective #3 ........................................................ 53
4. Internal Controls for Marjjuana Scizure/Disposal and Cash Evidence
Internal Controls Re: Confiscation and Disposal of Marijuana Seized During CCFOs .. S4
Internal Controls Re: Confiscation and Disposal of Marijuana Seized u Evidence ...... 55
viii
Internal Controls Re: Cash Seizures........................................................ 56
Findings Re: Study Objective #4 .......................................................... S7
S. Response to Public Complaints Regarding Aerial Activities
Internal Control Procedure re: Public Comments and Complaints ....................... S8
Findings Re: Study Objective #S .......................................................... 60
6. Expenditures and Grant Performance (1994-98)• Trend Analysis
Multi -Year Documentation of Grant Expenditures ........................................ 61
Multi -Year Statistical Documentation of Grant -Funded Eradiation Activity ............. 62
Multi -Year Narrative Documentation of Grant -Funded Activity .......................... 64
Independent Assessments of Marijuana Eradiation ........................................ 67
Estimations of Crop Value.................................................................. 68
Stateof Hawaii Arrest Statistics ............................................................. 70
TrendsIn Marijuana Use/Consumption.................................................... 71
FindingsRe: Study Objective #6 .......................................................... 73
CHAPTER S: CONCLUSION......................................................... 7S
BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................... 76
Appendix A:SovtcgicGoals and Ofyccdmsofthc 19"Nationa/DrogControl Strategy,
Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy
Appendix 8: State ofHawaiYProrj/c, ONDCP Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse,
National Criminal Justice Reference Service
Appendix C: Project Mont" Rcport96-DB-/3— Statewide ManjuanaEzadiation
T"Ir Force, November 2, 1998, Crime Prevention and justice Assistance
Division, Department of the Attorney General, State of Hawaii
Appendix D: Hawai iPo/ice Department Procedures for Marijuana Eradication Operation,
Hawaii County Police Department
Appendix E: June 7, 1999 Counter -Cannabis Fte/d Operation Site Visit by the Lcvirladvc
Auditor's OTce, Office of the Legislative Auditor, County of Hawai'i
Appendix F: The Hawaiian Marijuana Warby Bill Weinberg, High TimcsMagazine,
October, 1996
Appendix G: 1998 Hawaii Student A/cvho/and Drug use Study, Renee Storm Mingle, Ph. D.
And Michael D. Miller, Ph.D., University of Hawaii, for Alcohol and Drug
Abuse Division, State of Hawai'i Department of Health
Appendix H: Drug Use 7icnds, June 1999, ONDCP Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse,
Executive Office of the President, Office of national Drug Control Policy
ix
INDEX OF TABLES
TABLE 1:
FY 1997 Byrne Grant Allocations, Hawaii
TABLE 2:
Percentage of Award Spent (1992.1998)
TABLE 3:
State of Hawal'i Federal Funding,1998
TABLE 4:
DEA Cannabis Seizures (1990.95)
TABLE 5:
Distribution of DEA Funds, 1993 to 1997
TABLE 6:
ONDCP Drug Reduction Performance Targets
TABLE 7:
96 -OB -13 Project Budget (Proposed and Actual)
TABLE 8:
Reciprocal Assignment of Police Personnel During 96 -DB -13
TABLE 9:
96 -DO -13 Report Summary: April 1, 1997 to June 30,1998
TABLE 10:
CCFO Operations 196-08-13 Grant Period]
TABLE 11:
1997 Project Reporting, LOA 97.39 (Outdoor Cultivation)
TABLE 12:
1997 Project Reporting, LOA 97.39 (Indoor Cultivation)
TABLE 13:
Special Study Worksheet: Grant 96 -DB -13 Expenditures
TABLE 14:
Aircraft Rental Expenditures for LOA 97.39: January -December 1997
TABLE 15:
Confirming Purchase Order C-40229, (June 13,1997)
TABLE 16:
TraveUPer Diem for DCEISP Conference (LOA 9739)
TABLE 17:
Special Study Worksheet: LOA 97.39 Expenditures
TABLE 18:
Public Calls/Complaints During FY97-98 Eradication Missions
TABLE 19:
Marijuana Eradication, 1984-1997 (Number of Plants by County)
TABLE 20:
DCE/SP Program Statistics, State of Hawai'i,1994.1997
TABLE 21:
DCE/SP Program Statistics, Hawai'I's vs. Other 49 States
TABLE 22:
NORML Profile - State of Hawai'l,1997
TABLE 23:
Total U.S. Expenditures on Illicit Drugs, 1988-1995 ($ in billions)
TABLE 24:
Drug Abuse Arrests, Hawai'i County, 1982-1996
TABLE 25:
Monitoring the Future Survey, 1975.1997
TABLE 26:
Lifetime Marijuana Use, U.S. vs. Hawal'1 County
x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background
Phis special stud v was conducted in response to Flawai'i Countv Council Resolution
Number 338-98 adopted December 23, 1995. The resolution requested the Legislative
Auditor to conduct a special study of the Hawaii Countv Police Department's
Grant 96 -DB -13 with the State Attorney General and Letter of Agreement 97-39 with the
Drug Enforcement Administration of the U.S. Department of' Justice.
Grant 96 -DB -13 invoked the receipt of $108,29+ from the Department of the Attorney
Gcncral, State of Hawaii, serving as a pass-through at,cncv for the U.S. Deparlmcnl of
Justice, for which the County of Hawaii, in accepting federal Funds, agreed to provide
matching Funds of $36,098. The project period, with an extension, was from April 1,
1997 to June 30, 1998. Approval for the project extension was granted by the
Department of the Attorney General on February 6, 1998.
Letter of Agreement No. 97-39 invoked the receipt of 5195,0(X) From the Drug
Enlorcement Administration (DEA) of the U.S. Department of Justice. No Countv funds
were committed to the DEA allocation. The project period extended front January
I, 1997 to December 31, 1997. An amendment to DEA Letter of Agreement No. 97-39
dated August 25, 1997 increased funds provided to the Hawaii County Police Department
h) an additional S50,000 in order to "defrav costs related to the eradication and
suppression of marijuana." The amendment increased the total allocation for Letter of
Agreement 97-39 to $245,000.
file Hawat'I County Council determined that a special studv was warranted after
considering public testimony received during Finance Committee and Itdl Council
meetings on Council Resolutions Nos. 94-97 and 116-97, approved auk 2, 1997. The two
Council resolutions authorized the Count' of Haw-at'i to enter Into an agreement with the
Unitcd States of America for a Statewide Marijuana Eradication Grant (Grant 96 -DB- 13)
and a Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program allocation (Letter of Agrec-
mew No. 97-39), respcetivel).
The Council resolution renjucsted fill cooperation From the Ilawai'I C'onot% Police
Department in prnyirling any requested documents and response., lord dw special stud), and
directed the Le,,islati)c Auditor to reprrrt to Ihr Counts MI six 1111-1 lilt rl <nhlrcl areas,
11
setting forth the scope and ohicclives of the special study.
Scope and Objectives
Hawaii Countv Council Resolution No. 338-98 resolved that the score and objectives of
the special study arc as follows:
1. Examine the effectiveness of each grant program by determining the extent to .which
each grant program met its stated goals and objectives as defined in Grant 96.1313-13
and 97-39.
2. Examine the cxpcnditurtz of each grant program to determine whether funds were
spent in a manner consistent .with the budgeted amounts stated in the grants and
whether the expenditures further the stated goals and objectives of' each grant and as
authorised by the grantor.
3. Determine whether the County Police Department has complied with the obligations
of each grant.
4. Examine whether internal controls exist and are being complied with regarding
procedures used by the Police Department when confiscating and disposing of
marijuana or confiscating cash evidence as it relates to the subject grants.
S. Examine whether response and disposition procedures exist and are being followed by
the Police Department when handling public complaints of aerial activities related to
the subject grants.
6. Document the levels of expenditures for each grant since 1994 and the level of
performance reported in each grant in order for the Council to analyze possible grant
trends.
Within the established scope and objectives for this study, several topics of related interest
arc not critically examined. These include legislation relating to industrial hemp, state
ballot initiatives supporting medicinal marijuana, and the recent decision of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services to establish procedures for biomedical
researchers investigating potential medical uses of marijuana and its constituent
cannabinoids in controlled clinical trials. 'I hese developments may afli•ct the complexion of
debate and pnliey-making regarding marijuana, but they do not fall within the intended
scope of this studv.
A limited review of public health treatment and prevention programs funded by the U.S.
Department of Justice, as well as publisher) stauslics regarding m.triluana use, percwtverl
availability, and marijuana -related arrests is provided, as this database relates to the overall
elTcctrvcncss of marijuana eradication programs in l lasvai'i.
2
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL GRANTS
Multi -Jurisdictional Organization of Marijuana Eradication Activities in Hawaii
In March 1991, the Statewide Marijuana Eradication Task Force was organized to
coordinate marijuana eradication activities throughout the State of Flavvai'i and to foster
interagency collaboration. The Primary goal of the Task Force is "the suppression of the
cultivation and/or distribution of marijuana, reducing product availability."
The Task Force evolved alter early efforts to deter the burgeoning activity in illegal
marijuana cultivation in Hawaii --beginning with "Green Harvest" operations in the late
1970's—led to greater coordination of federal, state, and county resources, strategic
planning and funding.
Presently, the Task Force is composed of the four county police departments, the
Department of the Attorney General, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Hawai' i
Army National Guard, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, and the U.S. Army.
County police departments provide personnel for marijuana eradication operations on all
islands. The military contributes helicopters and cartographic/plotting services. The
Flawai'i Army National Guard furnishes surveillance services, training and helicopters. The
Department of Land and Natural Resources provides personnel and equipment. The
Attorney General allocates BfA (Byrne Memorial Formula Grant) grant fund.. to Task
Force members and consolidates project reports. The Drug Enforcement Administration
serves as the lead agency for the Task Force and provides additional funding, equipment,
and personnel. In turn, in its application for Byrne Grant funds, the Flawat't County Police
Department is identified as "the lead agency and facilitator for the counts. Police
departments" participating in the Task Force. In that capacity, the Hawaii County Police
Department is "responsible for coordinating communication and liaison activities among
representatives of the four county police departments and will have the lead role in project
activities."
The organization and mossion of Hawaii's Statewide ;Marijuana Eradication Task Fnrcc
reflects a local strategy of federal drug control strategy—support for multi -jurisdictional
ell-orts by state and local law enforcement agencies. A stated objective al the :Vitir'nal
Ortg Contro/.y'trtttgv issued by the White House 011ice of National Drug Control Polte'y
(()ND('P) is sirengtftening "law enfnrcement including federal, state, and local drug task
forces." ONDCP's 1999 strategy states that "promoting inter -agency cooperation and
cross-jurisrlictwnal operattnns kill make law enforcement more efficient." (A copy of OIL-
/ 999
he1999 S7ratr:14, CGu.t/v and C)hli ,tit cc nl the Vitumal Urur. Control Stratclgt-;s pror;dc(I in
Aj>pcndts A.)
3
Reduction of the supply of illegal drugs, according to ONDCP, "is an essential component
of a well-balanced strategic approach to drug control." Noting that drug supple reduction
has both domestic and international dimensions, ONDCP states that "within the United
States, supply reduction includes regulation (through the Controlled Substances Act),
enforcement of anti-drug laws, eradication of marijuana cultivation, control of precursor
chemicals, Customs' inspection of commerce and persons entering the country, screening
fur drugs in prisons, and the creation of drug-free school zones."
Annual federal funding for the Statewide Marijuana Eradication Task Force is provided by
two agencies, the BJA and the DEA, both within the U.S. Department of Justice. The
HaNvai'1 County Police Department receives funding from (1) the Edward Byrne Memorial
State and Local Lays Enforcement Assistance Program, a grant program administered by
the BJA; and (2) the Domestic Cannabis Eradication/ Suppression Program (DCE/SP),
administered by the DLA. Similarly, the Hunululu, Maui and Kauai police departments,
along with the State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, receive BJA
and DEA funds to support their participation in the Statewide Marijuana Eradication Task
Force.
Annually, upon determination of funding allocations to the Flawai'i Count, Police
Department by the BJA and DEA, the Hawaii County Council, by resolution, authorizes
the County of Hawaii to enter into agreements with and accept funds from the United
States of America, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 46-7, Hanai'i Heriscr/.NJtutes.
Chapter 46-7, HRS empowers a county department, with the consent of the council, to
"enter into agreements (which may extend over any period, notwithstanding any provision
or rule of law to the contrarv) with the federal government or any other public body or
bodies respecting action to be taken pursuant to any of the powers granted to it by lase and
furnish, upend, and receive any funds or other assistance in connection %viih projects
hcing or to he undertaken pursuant to the po%%ers."
On Jut 2, 1997 Council Resolution No. 94-97 authorized agreement with and acceptance
of funds from the BJA through the State Department of the Attorney General Crime
Prevention and Justice Assistance Division for Count' Project Number 96 -DB -13 (Byrne
Memorial Formula Grant funds). Additionally, on July 2, 1997 Council Resolution No.
116-97 authorized agreement with and acceptance of funds from the DEA for County
Project Number 97-39 (DCE/SP funds).
BJA Byrne Memorial Formula Grant Program
Statlmon aulhonty for the Ifyrne Memorial grant progrant is pniyicled under 'I my I,
Part E, Subpart I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Sirwwis Act of 1968 (Public Law
90-351), 42 LLS, Corte 3711 L sem., as amended, and Title VI, Subtitle C, Part L,
Subpart I of the Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1918 (Publi( Law 100-690). Ihc prolwct
con.utWcS an official part of flaaai'i's Drug Control and System Improvement Formula
4
Grant Program established under Title %-I, Subtitle C, Part E, Subpart I of the Anti-Druo
Abuse Act of 1988.
In Section 504(1) of the Act, Congress imposed a maximum funding Period ol' four vears in
the aggregate for projects funded under the Byrne Formula Grant Program. -I he four-year
funding limitation is applied by the Act to all projects, with the exception of multi -
jurisdictional drug task forces, victim assistance programs, and multi -jurisdictional gang
task forces.
The Byrne Memorial Grant Program, named in honor of Edward Byrne, a New York
policeman killed in the line of duty, funds a wide variety of criminal justice initiatives and
prevention and treatment programs throughout the fifty states. Under the program, BJA is
authorized to award formula grants to states and territories and di;rrerionary grants to
public and private agencies and non-profit organizations. The states, in turn, subgrant
awards to various state agencies and local units of government.
In fiscal year 1998, Congress appropriated SSOS million for the Byrne Formula Grant
Program. From this appropriation, each state receives a base amount of 0.2 S percent. The
remaining funds are allocated according to each state's relative share of the U.S.
population.
States arc required to contribute a 2S°,6 cash match toward their overall Byrne funding.
-typically, the match is provided on a project -biz -project basis, although the BJA may
approve a statewide aggregate match option. The states are further required to "Pass
through" a share of their funds to local jurisdictions, or subgrantces, in proportion to local
agencies' share of total state criminal justice expenditures. In distributing funds, states arc
directed to give priority to those jurisdictions with the greatest need.
Subgrants must address one or more of some 26 icgislatively authorized "purpose areas."
Broadly, these purposes address enforcement of state and local laws that establish offenses
similar to those defined in the Federal Controlled Substances Act and improvements in the
functioning of the criminal justice system, with emphases on drug-related crime, violent
crime, and serious offenders. (Subgrants supporting marijuana eradication activities are
authorized under purpose arca #2 relating to multi -jurisdictional task force programs.)
The 26 purpose areas established for Bvrnc formula grant funds and further atlnessed in
the contract between the Department of the Attorney General and the Hawaii County
Police Department for Project No. 96 -DB -1 3 are as follow:
I. demand reduction education programs in which law cnlurcement officers
participate;
2. multi -jurisdictional task force programs that integrate federal, ,talc, and local law
enforcement agencies and prosecutors if, enhance inlcragencv coordlinatiun and
intelligence and facilitate multi -jurisdictional investigations; -
5
3. programs designed to target the domestic sources of controlled and illegal
substances, such as precursor chemicals, diverted pharmaceuticals, and clandestine
laboratories and cannabis cultivations;
4. community and neighborhood programs that assist citizens in preventing and
controlling crime, including special programs that address the problems ol' crimes
committed against the elderly and special programs for rural jurisdictions;
S. programs to disrupt illicit commerce in stolen goods and property;
G. programs for improving the investigation and prosecution of white-collar crime,
or_oanized crime, public corruption crimes and fraud against the government with
priority attention to cases involving drug-related of corruption;
7. programs for (a) improving the operational eflcctiveness of law enforcement
through the use of crime analvsis techniques, street sales enforcement, schoolvard
violator programs, gang -related and low-income housing drug control programs;
and (b) developing and implementing anti -terrorism plans for deep draft ports,
international airports and other important facilities;
N. career criminal prosecution programs, including the development of model drug
control legislation;
9. financial investigative programs that target the identification of money laundering
operations and assets obtained through illegal drug trallicking, including the
development of proposed model legislation, financial investigative training and
I'mancial information sharing systems;
10. improving the operational eflccticeness of the court process by expanding
prosecutorial, defender, and judicial resources and implementing court delay
reduction programs;
11. programs designed to provide additional public correctional resources and improve
the corrections system, including treatment in prisons and jails, intensive
supervision programs and long-range corrections and sentencing strategics;
12. programs for providing prison industry projects designed to place inmates to a
realistic working, and training environment which will enable them to acquire
marketable skills and to make financial payments for restitution to their victims,
for support to their families and for support of themselves in the institution;
1 3. programs which identify and meet the treatment needs of adult and juvenile drug-
dcpendcnt and alcohol -dependent offenders;
14. programs to provide assistance to jurors and witnesses and assistance (other than
(ompensation) to victims of crime;
15. programs (a) to improve drug control technology, such as pretrial drug testing
programs, programs which provide for the identification, assessment, referral to
lrcaunent, case management and monitoring of drug -dependent ollenders and
enhancement of state and local furrnsic laboratories; (b) hm criminal jusoco
inlormation systems to assist lav, enforcement, prosecution, courts and correc-uons
nrganizaiwnx (est iuding automalc(d fingerprint identification systcros);
IG, innovauvc programs which (dcnumstratc ncvv in(] diffcrenl approaches to
cnh�rc'cncnt, pn,w(ution and adjudication of drug olll•nscs and other serous
cnmcs;
0
17. Programs addressing the Problems of drug trafficking and the illegal manufacture
of controlled substances in Public housing;
18. Programs for improving the criminal and juvenile justice system's response to
domestic and family violence, including spouse abuse, child abuse and abuse of the
elderly;
19. drug control evaluation programs which state and local units of government may
utilize to evaluate programs and projects directed at stale drug control activities;
20. programs providing alternatives to prevent detention, jail and prison for persons
who pose no danger to the community;
21. programs with the primary goal of strengthening urban enforcement and
prosecution efforts targeted at street drug sales;
22. programs for the prosecution of driving while intoxicated charges and the
enforcement of other laws related to alcohol use and the operation of motor
vehicles;
23. programs that address the need for effective bindover systems for the prosecution
of violent 16- and 17 -year old juveniles in court with jurisdictions over adults.
Certain violent crimes, including murder and felonies committed with firearms,
are specified, with reference to U. S. C. § 36;
24. law enforcement and prevention programs that target gangs or youth who are
involved with or are at risk of involvement in gangs;
25. programs to develop or improve forensic laboratory capabilities to analyze DVA
for identification purposes; and
26. programs to assist states in the litigation processing of death penalty federal habeas
corpus petitions.
Determination of Funding and Responsibility for Byrne Memorial Formula Grant
Program Oversight and Review
the Guirhutce and Application Kit issued by the BJA speafics program politics and
administrative guidelines for States to implement the Byrne Formula Grant Program
authorized by Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Strects Act of 1968. BJA
states that its Guidance provides legal and policy information -and "should be used in
conjunction with the Act itself."
According to BJA, the Byrne Formula Grant Program consists of "two defining
components." The first is "a strategic planning process based on a comprehensive
assessment ol' the State's drug and crime problems." The second component is the array of
"programs that the State develops to address its established priorities."
Strategic plans and programs developed by the States arc specifically required by Section
5U 3(a)(I)(P) of the Act to include all analysis of the relationship betWucn State efforts and
the priorities of the National Drug Control Strategy, first established in September 1989
and updated annually. 'I he Act requires the Statewide Strategy to he prepared only after
consultation with State and local officials, giving emphasis to "those lolficialsl whose duty it
7
is to enforce drug and criminal laws and direct the administration of justice." States are
also encouraged to contact and work directlLaw Enforcement
with U.S. Attorneys, state LaEnforcement
Coordinating Committee's (LECC's), DEA, FBI, ATF, U.S. Customs, and Border Patrol.
Additionally, the Act allows funds to be used for the Participation of state and/or units of
local government in the State and Local Task Force Program established by the DEA. In
Flawai'i, the operative LECC is the Governor's Committee on Crime, whose membership
includes the U.S. Attorney.
Section S07 of the Act provides that the Chief Executive (Governor) of each Participating
State shall designate a State Administrative Agency (SAA) to perform the following
Functions:
• Prepare an application to -obtain Byrne Formula Grant Program funds;
• Administer formula grant funds received From BJA, including receipt, review,
processing, monitoring, progress and financial report review, technical assistance,
grant adjustments, accounting, auditing, and fund disbursements; and
• Coordinate the distribution of formula grant funds provided under Section S07 with
State agencies receiving federal funds for drug abuse education, prevention,
treatment, and research activities and programs.
More specifically, the SAA's primary responsibilities as outlined in BJA's Guidance and
Application Kit are:
• Obtaining proper designation and organizing the SAA
• Using administrative funds
• Providing match Funds
• Preparing and submitting an application for funds
• Developing the Statewide Strategy, including coordination with other criminal justice
entities and collecting and analyzing data
• Making suhgrants to other State and local units of government
• Providing discal and programmatic oversight of suhgrant implementations
• Assessing the effectiveness of programs
• Reporting key program information to BJA
• Complying with special Byrne Program requirements
• Assuring compliance with Federal lav, regarding imelligence systems and civil rights
regulations
BIA further directs that "the SAA should have some personnel (or equivalent contractual or
Slal c-suppI icd resources) rhrcctutg attention to each of these funcnuns: overall
managcmcnt and policymaking, data collection and analysis, program planning,
administrative and fiscal oversight, onsite monitoring for programmatic and compliance
purposes, provision of technical assistance, and conduct or of evaluation." 131A
11
8
states that "the SAA is primarily responsible for ensurtnothat it. suhgraotin`. process
`
conforms with all requirements of the Act." l'he SAA is held responsible for grant
implementation and "oversight of individual suhgrant projects furldcd under the .line
program."
fhe designated SAA for Byrne Formula Grants awarded to the State of Ilavai'I is the
Department of the Attorney General, Crime Prevention and Justice Assistance Division
(CPJAD). In that capacity, the Attorney General serves as the "pass through" agency for
Bvrnc Nlemorial funds and administers contracts awarded to subgranices, including the
Hamvai't County Police Department.
CPJAD is advised by the Governor's Committee on Crime (GCOC), chaired by the State
Attorney General. Its members include the director of the Department of Public 5al'ety,
tiro prosecutino attnrnevs, two police chiefs, the administrative director ol'thr courts, a
judgc, the chairperson of' the Flawai't Paroling Authority, the director of the Department
of Health, the adjutant general of' the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Attorney (cx-
officio). It should be emphasized that the GCOC is not considered a "hoard" or "agency"
under Chapter 92, HHS, relating to Public Agency Meetings and Records. Chapter
25-10.6(4), HHS, provides authority for the State Attornev General to establish "citizen
and government agency study teams to study specific crime subjects or criminal justice
system problems, in order to obtain input or advice from a more specialized segment of the
criminal justice or public community on those specific matters."
The BJA Gui(lancx and 141)lVicatiun Kit to States Implementing BN tile Grant programs
strongly endorses public input in the development ol' state strategic plans. I he Guir/.unr
states that "an excellent vehicle Ibr receiving public input is a public hearing," arldmg that
an ripen agenda hearing can give rise to new ideas and reveal problems not necessarily
captured elsewhere." The Gm?lmee further notes that "hearings organized around a
specific topic, such as a new or proposed strategy priority issue, can also he very effective."
In preparing its annual application for Byrne Memorial funds, CPJAD staff conduct annual
"Subgrantee Evaluation Workshops." Workshop attendees include personnel for all current
and upcoming (Brrne Grant projects, as well as potential applicants. The workshops olf'cr
information on the BJA formula grant program and the specific implementation of the
project clfeetivcness model. The number of sulmgrant cc workshops h.ms mcrcascrl art rcccnt
Nears.
CPJAD also assembles criminal justice data and umfornmatm on regarding agency and system
mods. -Ibis activity is usually performed during spring anti sunmmcr months, and includes
GCOC meetings at which lave enforcement anti junccian' agencies make presentations of
thctr needs. It Is before the GCOC that the Slatcw'ide ,Marijuana Fradu-anon Task force
presents its concept paper covering requested funning, resoume uceds, and a proposed
annual stork plan. .More recently, the llawat'i County Police Dep.u'tuicot has perlurnmcd
the rule of Task Force spokesperson bclare the GC'()(
7
In Preparing Hawat'i's 1997 "multi-year strategy," the GCOC conducted a round of county
meetings in 1996 to hear the concerns of criminal justice personnel, including
representatives from the prosecutor's office, police department, courts, probation,
corrections, and parole. Among the concern., expressed at the Ha%%ai'i County meeting
was the "continuing need for multi -jurisdictional support to continue marijuana
eradication."
Using the agency input, the GCOC formulates and prioritizes the state strategic plan and,
in September, proposals are solicited from a wide array of agencies to determine programs
to ILnd.
When recommending fund apportionment to the Attorney General for the matrix of
programs funded by Byrne Memorial Formula Grants, the GCOC has consistently stressed
drug enlitrcement and treatment initiatives as a prinrit'v, with i perennial focus on
marijuana eradication. However, drug enforcement activity comprises only one program
among many agencies throughout HawaiTs criminal justice system receiving Byrne
Memorial Funds.
The "multi-year strategy" develuped in FY 1997 for the allocation of Byrne funds addressed
six priority areas affecting Haw•ai'i's criminal justice system. They arc (1) drug interdiction
and treatment; (2) prison overcrowding; (3) property crime; (d) violence (domestic, child,
sex assault); (5) system improvement; and (G) youth crime.
CPJAD then prepares its application for Byrne Memorial Formula Grant Funds and makes
its availability public prior to submitting it to the BJA pursuant to Section 3.Ic(3) of BJA's
Guirlrncc and `I)plicatinn Kir. It reads:
"Certified Assurance #+ requires that the grant application be made public
before its submission to BJA and that, to the extent provided under State lase
and/or established procedure, opportunity to comment on the strategy and
funding plan he provided to citizens and community groups. -rhe SAA can meet
this requirement by announcing its availability in the official State Register that
routinely lists all official government announcements or in major public
newspapers, or by holding a public hearing or open advisory board meeting, with
reasonable notice to the public, after the strategy and applicatinn arc readied for
submission to B)A. In all cases, copies of the application must be made available
for public review.
Note that mrettng,, hearings, or other SAA strategy devrlopmcnt mliyittes do
not satisfv this requirement. Although these forums olien serve to cogagc the
public in Program Planning and funding allocations and provide an aycnuc for
public conunenl, these events (occur prior to the completion and suhmissum of
the full strategy and, thus, are not a method of compliance.
E
Some statement in the application should set forth separatel.y and specilicall-c how
this public notice requirement seas met."
For HaSvai'i's application, CPJAD publishes a notice in the legal classified section of the
Honolulu Aclverrtee•r. An example of the notice is replicated below. Moreover, state
legislative review of the final application is mandated. The Legislature or its designated
body has 30 days to provide comments. Any comments received from the Legislature
must he forwarded to BJA along with the application.
PUBLIC NOTICE
IM• wve IIJwLI J4VIKnnn.
MCw11,1N 11M YIaIJII• IY 11N• Mu11nVrJr
Aue'Ny. lu. IX•• IJwarJ NYmf 6Mmurpl
$IJII• JrYI IrKJI lJw L111urCrwYnl
A\\1\IJMf 14rmyJ NrJM Or4NfJm W�dfr
IM• NAA IM,t 41.8 N vjPl,W 11, U1,
SbrcN ACI til I'lLX n wILWr fur yuLlw
J d 14m111Yr11 JI 16f Dllw,,"
41 m16f AllYrnry G ,tl. Crum
Yrfven4on JnJ JY Wit ArvWrcf
Dry Pl 4:5 Qo Ill Slrfel. Ilum I45
m 14 a 30 0 m , w4r4Jryv Nmn 1,,,^
36 w If6rwV 6. 1996 Cwlxl IJrt
R41y. 5M 11S1
IILM Adv Ian 15,
19961 IAa 71651
The process cited above lir the determination of Byrne Memorial Formula Grants was
affirmed by firmer Attorncv General Margery S. Bronster in testimony before the Hawaii
County Council on August 6, 1996. Excerpts of her remarks from the minutes of the
August 6, 1996 Committee on Finance meeting are quoted hclosc.
"I am the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii. I come here today in a couple of
capacities. First, as Attorney General, I'm the chief law enforcement officer of the
State.
In addition, I chair the Governor's Committee on Crime. And the reason the
Governor's Committee on Crime is important for this debate is because the
Governor appoints the Attorney General and appoints the members of the
Governor's Committee on Crime to represent law enforcement groups throughout
the State, as well as members of nanous counties and throughout the executive
branch of government, to try to look at what are the chief areas of crime within the
state that arc important, and to make recommendations as to how the Byrne
Memorial Funds are going to be distributed.
-1 he Byrne Memorial Funds arc the funds 1 think arc at least In part at issue today, as
to sv hedger or not the Countv is going to accept the marijuana cranccalion funds that
the Guccrnnr's Committee on Crime has approved lir the County. And
spccllicalk, this year the amount til money is S 105,000 from the Ilvrnc Funds. the
Bvrnc Funds, unfortunately, arc limited funds. It's approximately S2 million a year.
And so, what we're talking ahout here is a fairly limited amount of those funds that
have been set aside for marijuana eradication for the Bili Island.
But 1 think that it's fair to say that the entire Governor's Committee on Crime has
looked at this issue and has looked at the ellorts that have occurred over the last ten
years or more and has decided that despite the fact that the amount of money that is
being set aside is really quite limited, that it is still a very .worthwhile project and
was approved unanimously by the Governor's Committee on Crime. It is also the
amount that has been approved by the Federal government. So what we do as the
committee is we go in and we put together our plan to be accepted by the Federal
government by the Department of Justice who looks over our plan and approves it
so that the money is being offered pursuant to that whole process and if the County
does not accept the moncv, that moncv is not available otherwise for other lava•
enforcement issues within the Cuuntv."
In FY1997, the State of Hawaii received $2,833,200 from BJA's Bvrne Memorial Formula
Grant Program. Besides funding drug enforcement activities, other projects included:
• Expanded community/neighborhood watch programs in Waikiki and Havvat'i
County;
• A joint FBI/HPD/U.S. Attorney's O111ce task force formed in response to a rise in
violent purse snatching incidents;
• Expanded money laundering investigations targeting gambling, prostitution, and
organized crime;
• A Maui County Prosec'utor's Violent Crime Unit targeting sexual assault cases;
• Training of 55 Flavvai'i Countv criminal justice and health professionals on
examination, evidence recovery, and court presentation in sexual abuse cases;
• Provision of sexual offender treatment to 26 adjudicated juveniles on the islands of
Hawaii and Kauai;
• Completion of 279 substance abuse assessments by the Havwai'i Parnling Authority
(HPA), and subsequent referral of parolees to HPA and community outpatient
programs, or residential treatment;
• Assessment of 14S pretrial detainees by the Department of Public Safety for
recommended referral to residential treatment, intensive outpatient treatment,
supportive living programs, dual -diagnosis treatment, and detoxification;
• Participation of 50 offenders in a Kauai Community Correctional Center Ka't Like
drug-free precentum/mauucnaner program;
• Completion of a survey of infrastructure components by the Ilay.ai'i Criminal
Justice Data Center for each criminal justice agencv to improve the cllectiycncss of
the Olfenrder-Baserd Transaction StatisticS/Cnmputertzerd Criminal Ihstory
(OBI'S/CCII) syslem.
12
e Establishment of HawaiTs first Drug Court in the First Circuit on Oahu in
January, 1996.
e Start-up of the Alcohol and Drug Addiction Pilot Treatment Program (ADAPT)
for pretrial detainees identified as having substance abuse problems.
a 1997 funds supported an 8 -bed transitional living program for female offenders in
Hawai'i Community Correctional Center.
A breakdown of FY 1997 Byrne grant allocations by purpose areas is shown in the table
below, excerpted from "State of Hawaii Profile" (Appendix B), published by the Drug
Policy Information Clearinghouse, Office of National Drug Control Policy.
TABLE 1: FY 1997 Byrne Grant Allocations, Hawaii
Purpose Area
Amount
Purpose 2:
Task Forces
$315,000
Purpose 4:
Crime Prevention
$ 50,000
Purpose 5:
Property Crimes
S 82,474
Purpose 9:
Financial Investigations
$185,000
Purpose 11:
Corrections Programs
$237,889
Purpose 13:
Treatment
$ 57,000
Purpose 16:
Information Systems
$300,000
Purpose 18:
Domestic Violence
$489,250
Purpose 20:
Detention Alternatives
$354400
TOTAL GRANT AWARD
$2,833,200
NOTE: Of the 26 purpae areas aspWle far SA funding, only than for which
funds were allociaed are shown above.
DATA SOURCE: BJA, Annual Report FY 1997, September, 199E
A seven-year survey of Byrne Grant expenditures in Hawaii, shown in the table below,
reveals that typically only about one-third of Byrne Grant funds are expended on task force
efforts aimed at interdiction (particularly at the airports), marijuana eradication, and
drug/alcohol assessments throughout the criminal justice system.
TABLE 2: Percentage of Award Spent (1992.1998)
Program Areas
Drug Interdiction & Treatment
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
36%
42%
25%
34%
29%
25%
32%
Alternatives toIncarceration
2%
5%
15%
11%
16%
21%
3.5%
VloleMCrimes
22%
28%
30%
32%
31%
21%
33%
DATA SOURCE: Department of the Attorney General, State of Hawaii
13
In FY 1998, Hawat'i's B\'rm: Memorial Grant increased to S3,173,000. l hu amount
represented approximately one -Fourth of total federal spending allocated to drug control
and treatment programs in Hawaii, as sluwvn in the table below (sce Appendix A).
TABLE 3: State of Hawaii Federal Funding, 1998
PROGRAM
SOURCE
1998 AMOUNT
Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment
HHS
$6,810,000
Safe and Drug -Free Schools
DOE
$2,592,000
Edward Byrne Memorial Grant
8JA
$3,173,000
Residential Substance Abuse Program
CPO
365,000
Total
$12,512,000
DATA SOURCE: ONDCP Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse
All activities Funded under the Edward Berne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance Formula Grant Program during the state fiscal year arc summarized in a "State
Annual Report" prepared by the Department of the Attorney General. Preparation of the
report is required under Section S22 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) 1'he report includes a brief
description of each program, including project goals, objectives, performance measures,
activities and accomplishments. Each year, State Annual Reports (S.A.Rs) are compiled in
a BJA Annual Report to Congress on the Byrne Program.
*1 he BJA has prepared periodic evaluations of its various Byrne Grant programs. In 1992,
BJA compiled a study titled Law EnG,rcenrc•nt Task Forc'c Evaluation Projects: Rcxulrx and
Finnan{cv in the .States. the report reviewed task force research conducted in 1 1 states
between 1987 and 1991 (Flawai'i was not among the states evaluated). Each research
project was undertaken by a state -authorized agency or designate under a National
Consortium to Assess State Drug Control Initiatives funded by the U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. In October, 1993, the BJA issued a report titled
Multijurisdictional DrtT Control Tack Forces A Fisc Ycar Retictr 198S-/992 (A Report
of the State Rel)ortino incl Evaluation Proorant). Regarding Flavvai'i, the report stated
merely that in 1991 and 1992, two task forces provided statewide coverage, accounting for
the arrest of' 1,932 drug ollenders in 1992, and the removal of 710,000 cannabis plants
From 1988 to 1992.
Section 3751, 42 I.I.S.C. directs that each Bvrnc Memorial Formula Grant -landed program
"shall contain an evaluation component, developed pursuant to guidelines established by
the National Institute of Justice, in consultation with the Bureau of Iustice Asgstance." l"hc
evaluation component may he waived il', in the opinion of the RIA Director: (1) the
program is not of sulTicivnt size to lushly a lull evaluation report; or (2) the program cs
designed primardv to provide material resources and supplies, such as laboratory
equipment, that would not ju..ufy a Bill c%aluation report. Section X1766, 42 tl,S.C'.
established guidelines [or and criteria for the sclection of' programs for rc%tcvv, hr the
14
National Institute of Justice. Subparagraph (b)(4) states: "Routine auditing, monitoring,
and internal assessment of a State and local drug control program's progress shall be the
sole responsibility of the Bureau of Justice Assistance."
DEA Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), created in 1973 to consolidate federal
anti-drug forces under a single command, is the lead agency for domestic enforcement of
federal drug laws and is solely responsible for coordinating U.S. drug investigations abroad.
DEA began its Domestic Cannabis Eradication and Suppression Program (DCE/SP) in
1979 in Hawaii and California. The program now is active in all fifty states. Statutory
authority for DCE/SP activities is provided under the Controlled Substances Act of the
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. The Act directed the
U.S. Attorney General to cooperate with federal, state and local agencies concerning the
trafficking of controlled substances and authorized programs of eradication aimed at
destroying wild or illicit growth of plant species from which controlled substances may be
extracted.
DCE/SP activities are coordinated with state and local law enforcement task forces. The
DEA's State and Local Task Force Program was established in 1970 by its federal
predecessor, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. A DEA Internet—posted
briefing book indicates that the agency's State and Local Task Force Program now consists
of 134 state and local task forces, staffed by 668 DEA special agents and 1,769 state and
local police officers. The program aims to multiply the expertise and resources among
federal, state and local agencies. Under the program, sate and local law enforcement
agencies may receive assets forfeited as a result of cases made against drug dealers.
DEA established the DCE/SP
to hinder marijuana growing
within the United States and
to assist the states in their
local cannabis eradication
efforts. The program is man-
aged by the DEA's Special
Investigative Support Section.
An assigned DEA Agent Co-
ordinator provides oversight
for each state program. A
State DCE/SP Coordinator is
designated by the primary
state agency receiving fund-
ing.
15
Table 4: DEA Cannabis Seizures (1990-95)
In its nineteenth annual assessment of worldwide drug supply, the National Narcotics
Intelligence Consumers Committee reported that in 1997, DEA allocated S 13.6 million to
support 88 state and local law' enforcement agencies participating in the DCE/SP. The
1997 edition of .Sourcebook ol' Criminal Justice Statistics reported that nationwide,
DCE/SP eradicated 3,827,133 cultivated outdoor plants in 1997, along with 221,396
indoor plants and 136,990 pounds of processed marijuana. The program led to 17,070
arrests, and the seizure ol'4,713 weapons and 539,562, IGS in assets.
DEA administers the program through Letter of' Agreement contracts executed with state
and local law enforcement agencies, pursuant to the authority of 21 U.S. Code 873. DEA
reports that its "grant -like funding contracts" are used for expenditures including aircraft
rental, fuel for aerial operations, and overtime payments for state and local law
enforcement ollicers working on eradication operations. Program reporting is provided
via monthly accounting forms and monthly statistical reports submitted to the DEA
Honululu District 011ice by the Hawaii County Police Department.
States or local jurisdictions rcceivint� DEA funds prepare an annual operation plan in
coordination with the DEA's state coordinator. Hawai'i's DCE/SP member agencies meet
quarterly to share information and to plan and coordinate missions. The Hawaii National
Guard (RING) holds an annual planning meeting with county vice ollicials and other law
enforcement representatives to review requirements and resources and to determine the
number and type of missions to be supported. Funding requests under the DCE/SP are
submitted by the states annually and are required to include the following information:
• A summary of the state's current cannabis situation and trends;
• The state's strategy and objectives for use of the funding;
• DEA resident ollice's participation and other local and state resources available;
• Amount of Funding, training and other resource report being requested;
• Anv other funding, training and resource support needed From DEA.
In a 1997 Analvsis ol'Crime in H.r.vai'i report, the State Attorney General stated that
"Hawai'i ranks 47" in land mass vet continues to rank high in the eradication of cultivated
marijuana plants in the DEA's Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program." The
AG noted that "the majority of DCE/SP funds is given to Hawaii County in recognition of
the extent of their cultivation problems."
Distribution of DEA funds among the four counties and the state Department of Land and
Natural Resources a shown in the folio%%ing table.
1E
TABLE 5: Distribution of DEA Funds, 1993 to 1997
DATA SOURCE: Department of the Attorney General, State of Hawaii d Drug Enforcement Administration
Hawaii is prominently noticed in a DEA report prepared by the National Narcotics
Intelligence Consumers Committee titled' Me Supply of Illicit Drugs to the United States -
1996" regarding domestic cultivation/production and domestic eradication, excerpted
below:
"As in the past, domestic growers most frequently planted cannabis in remote
areas, often camouflaging it in surrounding vegetation. Major outdoor
cannabis cultivation took place in Hawai'i, Kentucky, Tennessee, California,
and New York ... The success of Hawai'i's Operation WIPEOUT, conducted
by law enforcement authorities with assistance from the U.S. Pacific
Command, was one of the DCE/SP's major accomplishments. In 1996,
Operation WIPEOUT'S success was evidenced by reports that traffickers
smuggled marijuana to Hawai'i to meet domestic demand. In 1996, prices
for sinsemilla in Hawai'i remained high as a result of the shortages caused by
the use of herbicidal eradication and the need to import marijuana from the
mainland.'
In April 1995, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Audit Division completed an
audit of the activities in 10 states participating in DEA's Domestic Cannabis
Eradication/ Suppression Program for the period of September 1, 1992 through August 31,
1994. Hawai'i was not among the states audited by the OIG. The OIG reported:
"Overall, we found that DEA funds were expended by state and local agencies for
allowable purposes in accordance with established guidelines. Our review did not reveal
wcakncsscs with the internal controls involving the destruction of cannabis."
17
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
COUNTY
Allocation
Allocation
Allocation
Allocation
Allocation
Honolulu
$ 30,000
$ 30,188
$ 30,000
$ 43,000
$ 48,000
Hawaii
182,000
189,633•
186,133•
190,000•
245,000•
Maui
90,000
95,066
90,566
86,000
96,000
Kauai
90,000
95,066
90,566
86,000
96,000
STATE
OLNR
82.000
lug
92.547
100.000
123.000
TOTAL
$474,000
$506,000
$489,812
$505,000
$608,000
• Includes DEA supplemental allocations of $8,500 to LOA 9415 119941: $5,000
to LOA 95.15
119951; $15,000 to LOA 96-14 119961: and $50,000 to LOA 97.39 119971
DATA SOURCE: Department of the Attorney General, State of Hawaii d Drug Enforcement Administration
Hawaii is prominently noticed in a DEA report prepared by the National Narcotics
Intelligence Consumers Committee titled' Me Supply of Illicit Drugs to the United States -
1996" regarding domestic cultivation/production and domestic eradication, excerpted
below:
"As in the past, domestic growers most frequently planted cannabis in remote
areas, often camouflaging it in surrounding vegetation. Major outdoor
cannabis cultivation took place in Hawai'i, Kentucky, Tennessee, California,
and New York ... The success of Hawai'i's Operation WIPEOUT, conducted
by law enforcement authorities with assistance from the U.S. Pacific
Command, was one of the DCE/SP's major accomplishments. In 1996,
Operation WIPEOUT'S success was evidenced by reports that traffickers
smuggled marijuana to Hawai'i to meet domestic demand. In 1996, prices
for sinsemilla in Hawai'i remained high as a result of the shortages caused by
the use of herbicidal eradication and the need to import marijuana from the
mainland.'
In April 1995, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Audit Division completed an
audit of the activities in 10 states participating in DEA's Domestic Cannabis
Eradication/ Suppression Program for the period of September 1, 1992 through August 31,
1994. Hawai'i was not among the states audited by the OIG. The OIG reported:
"Overall, we found that DEA funds were expended by state and local agencies for
allowable purposes in accordance with established guidelines. Our review did not reveal
wcakncsscs with the internal controls involving the destruction of cannabis."
17
Future Federal Direction of Drug Supply Reduction Strategies and Performance
Measurements
Newly developed federal Performance standards and goals, intended to establish
quantifiable measurements and/or benchmarks for determining the success of drug
reduction efforts by law enforcement agencies, eventually may assist in the analysis of
marijuana eradication in the State of Hasvai'i. Presently, analysis of the effectiveness of
marijuana eradication efforts in Flawai'i County—or anv other jurisdiction—is hindered by
a lack of reliable data about the extent of illicit cultivation.
In a report titled "The Supply of Illicit Drugs to the United States -1996," the DEA stated
that "it was difficult to estimate the amount of marijuana actually produced in the United
States in 1996, as there were no national surveys conducted on cannabis cultivation." In
1999, the OlEce of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) reported that "nu precise
system, comparable to that used for analyzing cocaine, is available to estimate the amount
of marijuana cultivated in the United States." ONDCP's Pu/se Check has noted "the
widespread availability of marijuana, suggesting that the supply of marijuana is either stable
at high levels or increasing."
The central premise of supply reduction, according to the Office of National Drug Control
Policy (ONDCP), is to "reduce the availability of drugs in the United States by disrupting
cultivation, processing, transshipment, and distribution activities wherever possible."
Ongoing disruption of drug production and trafficking; has two elficts, according to
ONDCP. First, it reduces the supply of illicit drugs reaching the market. Second, by
diminishing supply, it raises costs for criminal entrepreneurs and prices for drug users.
The result, says ONDCP, is that "a sustained reduction in supply, regardless of ho%% it is
achieved, is likely to lead to a reduction in consumption."
While "supply side" eradication and interdiction programs have been operational for manv
years, a nationally comprehensive protocol has only recently been adopted to measure the
effectiveness of drug control efforts by lass enforcement agencies.
The Of cc of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Public Laic
105-277) established a groundbreaking systems approach to the measurement of drug use,
drug availability, and the consequences of drug use. The Act requires ONDCP to submit
an annual report to Congress on clear, measurable targets to he accomplished by the years
2002 and 2007. Overall drug supply and demand "impact targets" arc shown in the
folluvymg table.
18
25% by 2002
50% by 2007
15% by 2002
30% by 2007
10% by 2002
20% by 2007
20% by 2002
50% by 2007
10% by 2002
20% by 2007
15% by 2002
30% by 2007
TABLE 6: ONDCP Drug Reduction Performance Targets
Supply
Demand
rd=rugs
ce the availability of Illicit ff711kpI
the demand for
in tl>• Unibd Slabs ug In tiN U.S.
Reduce the nate of shipment of
Illicit drugs from source zones
Reduce the rate of Illegal drug
Raw through transit and arrival
zonas
Reduce domestic cultivation
and production of Illicit drugs
Reduce the trafficker success
rate In the United Stabs
Reduce the prevalence of
drug use among youth
Increase the average age
of new users
Reduce the prevalence of
drug use in the workplace
Reduce the number of
chronic drug users
Consequences
Reduce the rata of crime Reduce tite health and social
associated with drug trafficking costs associated with drugs
and use
DATA SOURCE: 1999 National Drug Control Strategy
25% by 2002
50% by 2007
20% by 2002
50% by 2007
12 mos. By 2002
35 mos. By 2007
25% by 2002
50% by 2007
20% by 2002
50% by 2007
10% by 2002
25% by 2007
The ONDCP Reauthorization Act set targets for reduction of marijuana cultivation -200/9
by 2002 and 50% by 2007, compared to the baseline year, 1996. (NOTE: Identical targets
were established for reduction of methamphetamine production.) Additionally, to address
the lack of information on domestic cannabis cultivation and supply, the Act directed the
Secretary of Agriculture to "annually submit to the ONDCP Director an assessment of the
acreage of illegal drug cultivation in the United States.'
These initiatives to better monitor the overall effectiveness of national drug control efforts
are contained in a newly developed Performance Measurement of Effectiveness (PME)
system. ONDCP states that its PME system was instituted to comply with congressional
intent to establish "measurable objectives and specific targets to accomplish long-term
quantifiable goals.' During 1998, some 21 PME Working Groups developed the system
and focused on four key areas:
• Developing logic models that define causal relationships between
government interventions and desired end -states for each target or
group of targets;
19
• Generating action Plans to identify or ad%ocale program activities and
interventions that could he taken (based on the logic models) to
achieve the targets;
• Identifving Elide Paths, or annual targets, to correspond to the five -
and ten-vear targets established last year for 2002 and 2007, with
1998 being the initial year for the glide path in most cases; and
• Conducting a data gap analysis and developing a plan to close the data
gap for purpoiwv of establishing measures for those performance
targets lacking supporting data and information.
Implemented in 1998, the PME system is broadly intended to (1) assess the effectiveness of
ONDCP's National Drug Control Strategy; (2) provide information to the entire drug
control community on what needs to he done to refine policy and programmatic
directions; and (3) assist with drug program budget management. ONDCP states that the
"nest step in the PME System development process is to involve representatives of state
and focal governments, private entities and individuals with expertise in drug control, and
others in the completion of these various elements."
The PME system employs existing research instruments and neve surveys to gauge the
progress of drug control efforts. Drug use statistics and risk perception data from the
ongoing University of Michigan Monitoring the Future (MTF) and National Household
Survey of Drug Abuse (NHSDA) projects will be examined, along .with data gathered by
the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring System (ADAM) and the Drug Abuse Warning
Network (DAWN), which monitors drug abuse among persons admitted at hospital
emergency rooms. A U.S. State Department Subcommittee on Data, Research, and
Interagencv Coordination, meanwhile, will "consider additional instruments and measure-
ment processes required to address the demographics of chronic users, domestic cannabis
cultivation, drug availability, and data shortfalls related to drug policy."
ONDCP's FY2000 budget summary kicks off a formal linkage between federal drug
control budget requests and performance targets. In coming years, ONDCP states that its
P1I1E system will reassess and continuously refine the "dynamic drug -abuse problem and
progress in reducing its scope." Successful programs will be reinforced, .whereas "non -
achievement of a target over a period of time will trigger an in-depth interagency
evaluation to identifv problems and recommend corrective action." Corrective measures,
according to ONDCP, might include program modification, added resources, or
elimination of flawed targets altogether.
20
CHAPTER 3
PROJECT APPLICATION, BUDGEi(S), GOALS,
OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
96 -DB -13 Grant Application and Project Budget
The application submitted by the Hawaii County Police Department to the Attorney
General's Crime Prevention and Justice Division for FY97-98 Byrne Grant funds stated
that "illegal cultivation of marijuana in the County of Hawaii continues to be a major
ongoing law enforcement problem." Market prices ranging from $4,00048,000 per
pound and trade or barter with mainland suppliers for other illegal drugs were cited as
reasons why "large scale marijuana operations have not only continued, but show
indications of increasing."
An increase in marijuana plots and growing operations was also attributed to the closure of
the sugar plantation industry. Two major problems were noted. First, some newly
unemployed workers entered "the marijuana market as a means of income." Secondly, the
availability of abandoned sugar cane lands increased "growing territories" for marijuana
growers. Increased eradication activities in the South Hilo, North Hilo, Hamakua and Ka'u
Districts where former sugar workers resided confirmed these developments.
The Police Department's application cited 1995 increases in plants eradicated (408,048),
cases initiated (996) and arrests (791). Arrays of booby traps ranging from a trip
wire/implanted metal stake, protruding nails, punji sticks, leg snares, deep camouflaged
holes, fish hooks hung at eye level to more dangerous animal traps and explosive devices
were noted. A case was related in the application involving an individual who sustained
injuries to his hand after he unwittingly picked up a homemade 12 -gauge pipe gun that was
set off. Police later discovered that the trail where the booby trap gun was placed led to a
marijuana patch. Posted "warnings" within patches threatening repercussions against
"rippers" were encountered. Police also reported occasional incidents of hunters being
confronted by armed men telling them to stay away because it is "their territory."
Additional justification for grant support included the discovery of several indoor marijuana
growing operations, one consisting of nearly 3,000 plants in "elaborate greenhouses," as
well as a joint HCP/DEA investigation involving indoor growing operations run by illegal
Hungarian Nationals "brought to Hawaii specifically to grow marijuana." According to
defendants, before operations ceased, several million dollars of harvested marijuana were
sold to mainland markets. Police photos of these operations revealed one greenhouse with
a large retractable tarp roof to thwart aerial observation. A second greenhouse employed a
large platform mounted on rolling tracks to move plants speedily under cover.
21
In seeking funding to continue eradication efforts, the Police Department cited restrictions
governing the use of Hawai'i Army National Guard and Drug Enforcement Administration
helicopters, making it necessary to rent helicopters from the private sector at a cost
between S6004650 an hour. The 'bulk of grant monies," the application stated, "would
be budgeted for this specific cost."
Finally, the Department's application noted opposition from "organized groups, the
majority of which are marijuana advocates." Among these groups, the police cited the
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), as well as advocates
for a hemp industry and medicinal marijuana. In summation, the Department stated that
"it is imperative that all law enforcement agencies throughout the State collectively address
these issues as well as the issue of the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana."
COST
TABLE 7: 96 -DB -13 Project Budget (Proposed and Actual)
ELEMENT AMOUNT
A.
' SALARIES 6 WAGES: For Lieutenant (1) @ $4,353/mo,;
Detective (1) @ S3,374/mo.; Police Officer III (1) C $3,111/mo.;
Police Officer III (1) @ $2,868/mo. Police Reporter (1) C $2,606/mo.
$36,098
B.
TRANSPORTATION 6 SUBSISTENCE:
Airfare: (10 personnel Q $100 ea.)
$1,000
Per Diem (14 personnel C $80/day x 5 days)
S5,600
Ground Transportation: (3 vehicles Q $50/day x 4 days)
TOTAL
$ 7,200
C.
AIRCRAFT RENTAL:
Seven 7-hour/day missions x 2 aircraft @ $650/hour
$63,700
Two 7 -hour missions x 1 aircraft C $650/hour
$ 9,100
4 hours flight time for infrared surveillance detection
of indoor growing operations
$ 3.400
TOTAL
$76,200
D.
OVERTIME:
Travel, investigations, eradication of marijuana and
management (68 hours/month a $17.50/hour x 12 months)
$14,280
E.
HAZARD PAY:
Aerial observers & rappelers (14 missions (M $285/mission)
$ 3,990
F.
TRAINING:
Tuition and registration fees for workshops, seminars and
conferences (6 personnel @ $50 ea.)
$ 300
G.
RAPPEL EQUIPMENT
$ 1,324
H.
MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE/FIELD SUPPLIES
$ 1,000
I.
CONFIDENTIAL FUNDS:
Purchase of evidence, information and/or services
$ 3,000
J.
EOUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
$ 1,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
$144,392
22
• NOTE: Salaries and wages comprise the required 25% "match" of county funds applied
to the total Byrne Formula Grant budget (S 36,095 = 25% of S14-4,342). Matching
funds represent the percentage of time spent by Hawaii County Police Department
personnel managing and investigating marijuana -related operations.
Under the terms of the Financial Guide for Office of justice Programs, U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of the Comptroller, approval is required for any change in budget categories
"in excess of 10 percent of the total award amount." Dollars may be moved between
approved budget categories in amounts "up to 10 percent of the total budget cost (total
award amount) as last approved by the awarding agency provided there is no change in
project scope." The Financial Guide rule is applicable to grant awards exceeding $100,000
only.
Goals, Objectives and Performance Indicators for County Grant Project 96•DB-13
(Byrne Memorial Grant)
The stated project goals for Grant 96 -DB -13 are as follows:
1. The primary goal of the marijuana eradication program is to suppress marijuana
cultivation and to reduce product availability in this illicit market through crop
destruction. This will be accomplished by coordinating the efforts of the multi -
agency task force which consists of Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies.
2. To uncover large scale marijuana cultivation and distribution (domestic,
statewide, nationwide, and international exportation) operations and to identify,
arrest, and prosecute those responsible as well as those who profit from these
activities. This will include civil and/or criminal asset forfeiture proceedings.
The stated project objectives for Grant 96 -DB -13 are as follows:
I. Continue coordinated efforts of the statewide multi -agency task force in
developing and improving progressive marijuana eradication techniques, as well as
combining resources and manpower during field operations to curb statewide
marijuana cultivation.
2. To formulate and maintain effective and standardized marijuana eradication
operation procedures for all member agencies within the State, which .would
include development of and training in safety procedures and eradication
techniques.
3. To coordinate and establish guidelines with all member agencies of the task force
relative to utilization of helicopters to support marijuana eradication efforts. This
would encompass the welfare and safety of the public and law enforcement
personnel.
4. To increase arrest and prosecution of cultivators and distributors of marijuana.
This will include pursuing methods in identifying indoor marijuana cultivation.
23
J
S. To provide necessary training for personnel in order to address the more complex
and time-consuming investigative efforts required in investigation of indoor
operations, which includes the training with and utilization of more sophisticated
equipment.
6. To increase the number of civil and criminal asset seizures and forfeitures. This
includes ensuring personnel receive the necessary training to accomplish this task.
7. To reduce fractional and duplication of eradication efforts through coordinated
planning and operations among Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies.
8. Improve intelligence sharing regarding marijuana operations, operatives, etc.,
among task force agencies.
9. To collectively identify and address any new or unusual cultivation trends or
techniques.
The stated performance indicators Ibr Grant 96 -DB -13 are as follows:
1. The number of multi -agency missions or coordinated operations in marijuana
enforcement.
2. The total amount of marijuana plants eradicated as well as volume or processed
marijuana recovered.
3. The dollar value of marijuana plants eradicated and processed marijuana
recovered.
4. The number of persons arrested and prosecuted for cultivation, possession,
and/or distribution of marijuana.
S. The number of persons arrested for other drug and/or weapons violations in
connection with marijuana activities.
6. The number and value of assets seized and forfeited in connection with marijuana
activities.
7. The number of task force meetings held.
8. The development and implementation of standardized procedures for marijuana
eradication missions.
9. The number of training sessions held.
10. The number of successful investigations involving large-scale cultiva.
tion/distribution organizations.
1 l . The decrease in availability of marijuana for marketing and use/ consumption.
County Grant Project 97-39 (DEA Letter Of Agreement]
DEA Letters of Agreement 97-39 establishes an agreement between the Hawai'i County
Police Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration of the U.S. Department of
Justice whereby the parties "agree that it is to their mutual benefit to cooperate in locating
and eradicating illicit cannabis plants and in the investigation and prosecution of cases
before the courts of the United States and the courts of the State of Hawaii involving
controlled substances." The agreement directs the Hawaii County Police Department
24
(HCP) to use its own law enforcement and employees to perform the activities and duties
described below:
A. Gather and report intelligence data relating to the illicit possession and
distribution of marijuana.
B. Investigate and report instances involving the trafficking in controlled
substances.
C. Provide staffing of law enforcement personnel for the eradication of illicit
marijuana within the State of Hawaii.
D. Arrest and bring to prosecution defendants charged with violation of the
controlled substances laws.
E. Send required samples of eradicated marijuana to the NIDA (National
Institute of Drug Abuse) Marijuana Potency Monitoring Program.
Unlike Grant 96•DB•13, no performance indicators are specified in Letter of Agreement
97.39. Rather, the agreement states that "the activities described in subparagraphs A, B,
C, D, and E above shall be provided by the existing personnel and that the scope of the
HCP [Hawai'i County Police Department] program with respect to those activities by such
personnel shall be solely at the HCP discretion, subject to appropriate limitations contained
in the budget adopted by the HCP."
Allowable expenses under LOA 97.39 included payment of overtime of deputies and
officers; salary and overtime of reserve officers during the period of time they are engaged
in the eradication process; per diem as appropriate; as well as other direct costs such as
purchases of expendable equipment, rental of equipment (including aircraft) and vehicles,
fuel for vehicles and aircraft and minor repairs and maintenance necessitated by their use.
25
CHAPTER 4
REVIEW OF SIX SPECIAL STUDY AREAS
This chapter addresses the sir subject areas for special study review stated in Hawai'i
County Council Resolution No. 338-98.
STUDY OBJECTIVE #1: Examine the effectiveness of each grant Program by determining
the extent to which each grant program met Its stated goals and
obiectives as defined In Grant 96 -DB -13 and LOA 97.39.
The "primary goal" of Grant 96 -DB -13 is the suppression of marijuana cultivation and
reduction of product availability through crop destruction. That goal is accomplished
through the coordinated efforts of a multi -agency law enforcement task force. Similarly, a
primary program activity specified in LOA 97.39 is "staffing of law enforcement personnel
for the eradication of illicit marijuana within the State of Hawai'i."
The goals of Grant 96 -DB -13 and duties set forth in LOA 97-39 are fulfilled by the Hawaii
County Police Department through ongoing Counter -Cannabis Field Operations (CCFO's)
organized by the Statewide Marijuana Eradication Task Force.
Organization of Counter -Cannabis Field Operations
CCFO's, also known as "missions," are conducted to eradicate illicit marijuana patches and
to obtain probable cause for further criminal and civil action against persons responsible for
commercial promotion of marijuana and related violations. CCFO's are computed as days
during which county police personnel are assigned to field operations.
CCFO's are organized and mounted by pooling manpower resources and assistance from
federal, state and county law enforcement agencies throughout the State of Hawaii. Eight
participating agencies were involved in Hawai'i County CCFO missions during FY97-98.
They were the Hawaii County Police Department, Kauai Police Department (KPD), Maui
Police Department (MPD), Honolulu City & County Police Department (HPD), Hawaii
Volcanoes National Park (HVNP), Hawaii Army National Guard (HANG), Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA), and Department of Land and Natural Resources
(D LN R).
Hawai'i County Police Department officers assisted in CCFO's led by the Flonolulu, Maui
and Kauai Police Departments, as well as the Department of Land and Natural Resources.
In turn, DLNR and the Honolulu, Maui and Kauai Police Departments reciprocated the
assignment of personnel to CCFO's led by the Hawai'i County Police Department.
26
During FY 1997-98 (July 1, 1997 -June 30, 1998), the Statewide Marijuana Eradication
Task Force conducted a total of 75 Counter -Cannabis Field Operations throughout the
State of Hawaii. The number of CCFO's per lead agency were: Hawaii County Police
Department (including Hilo and Kona), 40; Department of Land and Natural Resources,
12; Honolulu Police Department, 8; Maui Police Department, 8; and Kauai Police
Department, 7.
Hawaii County benefited from the reciprocal assignment of police personnel from other
counties. During the 96 -DB -13 grant period, 74 police officers from the Honolulu, Maui
and Kauai police departments assisted Hawaii County during ten separate eradication
missions on the Big lsland. In turn, Hawaii County furnished 10 officers for five
eradication/ stakeout missions on other islands. Reciprocal assignment of police personnel
during the 96 -DB -13 grant period is shown in the following table.
TABLE 8: Reciprocal Assignment of Police Personnel During 96 -DB -13
OFFISLAND POLICE PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO HAWAW COUNTY
Mission Dates) Assigned Off -Island Police Personnel Total
April 22-25,1997
HPD — 4; MPD — 2; KPD —1
7
June 10-13, 1997
HPD -3; MPD —2;KPD —2
7
July 29.31, 1997
MPO —4;KPD —2
6
August 11-14, 1997
HPD — 4; MPD — 4; KPD — 2
10
September 9-11, 1997
HPD — 3; MPD — 2; KPD — 2
7
October 21-24, 1997
HPD — 4; MPD — 2; KPD —1
7
November 12-14,1997
HPD — 4; MPD — 2
6
April 6-9, 1998
HPD — 5; MPD — 5; KPD — 2
9
May 12-15,1998
HPD -5; MPD -2; KPD-2
9
June 8-10. 1998
HPD — 4: MPD — 2
6
Total Days: 35
Total Personnel:
74
HAWAW COUNTY POLICE PERSONNEL ASSIGNED OFF -ISLAND
Mission Date(s)
Hawaii County Police Assioned Off -Island
Total
May 19-23.1997
Kauai
1
May 31 June 5, 1997
Honolulu Stakeout
2
September 17-19,1997
Maui
2
October 1-3,1997
Honolulu
3
December 49. 1997
Honolulu Stakeout
2
Total Days: 23
Total Personnel:
10
DATA SOURCE: Hawaii County Police Department
The efficiency generated via statewide sharing of trained police personnel is largely
responsible for the number of missions (7S) conducted statewide during FY97.98 and,
according to the DEA, contributed to FlawaiTs March, 1998 rank of "second in the
nation," following Tennessee, in the amount of marijuana eradicated.
27
During aerial reconnaissance missions, the Hawaii Army [National Guard (HANG) and
DEA provide helicopters and pilots to search for and locate cultivated marijuana plants and
to direct other operational aircraft or "ground teams" to those locations for ground-based
manual eradication of plants. Assigned police officers serve as observers aboard each
aircraft. In order to ensure compliance with height and distance requirements, the Police
Department reports that it selects its most experienced and qualified officers as helicopter
observers.
Observer aircraft also maintain security for the safety of ground personnel, especially in
dense vegetation; direct ground teams to eradication sites in specific areas or when
personnel not trained in "stabo" or rappel techniques are assisting; locate and obtain
probable cause evidence to -further criminal investigations; and conduct follow-up aerial
surveillance based on public information and complaints.
Contracted pilots are required to be certified. Private, contracted helicopters and pilots
are utilized as operational aircraft for trained police personnel assigned as rappel master(s)
or obscrver(s) aboard the aircraft. According to the Police Department, contracted pilots
are required to be familiar with police flight restrictions more stringent than those of the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
These operational aircraft are used for rappeling and "stabo" operations—inserting
personnel and extracting personnel and confiscated marijuana plants, as well as
transporting plant material from the field to recovery vehicles. Operational helicopters are
occasionally used to obtain probable cause for search warrants or to confirm information
received by the police about marijuana growers.
In a letter to Councilman Jim Rath dated January 26, 1995, Police Chief Wayne G.
Carvalho described "probable cause" as follows: "The police may enter private property
during missions only for a proper and legal purpose. Evidence such as cultivated marijuana
spotted in plain view and within open fields may be easily eradicated, while a residence and
the enclosed areas around the residence may be searched only after legal consent or a
search warrant is obtained."
Reports Submitted for Grant 96 -DB -13
For Grant 96 -DB -13, the Hawaii County Police Department submitted required progress
reports on Statewide Marijuana Eradication Task Force activities every six months to the
Resource Coordination Division, Department of the Attorney General. Reports included a
hricf program description, an account of progress made toward achieving each goal and
objective, program activities to date, performance indicators documenting accomplishment
of objectives, and a description of problems encountered, their impact, and how they were
resolved. Reporting instruments included a narrative report and an attached federal
progress report (Office of Justice Programs Form 4310/2) on multi -jurisdictional activities
and targeting of domestic sources of controlled substances.
78
Highlighted data and accomplishments noted in a project -ending report submitted to the
Resource Coordination Division, Department of the Attorney General for the project period
are shown in the table below:
TABLE 9: 96 -DB -13 Report Summary: April 1, 1997 to June 30, 1998
Number of marijuana plots identified:
8,279
Number of marijuana plants eradicated:
331,109
i Dried processed marijuana recovered:
47.73 lbs.
Number of cannabis -related cases initiated and investigated:
1,304
Number of arrests made in marijuana -related investigations:
1,126
Number of arrests for cannabis cultivation:
100
Indoor marijuana cultivation operations identified and investigated:
7
Value of assets, vehicles, currency & real property seized for forfeiture:
$94,194.00
DATA SOURCE: Hawaii County Poke Dspanmant
All 8,279 sighted marijuana plots were reported eradiated. A "plot" is any cluster of
plants, ranging from as few as one plant to a grow operation consisting of thousands of
plants. Oftentimes, growers maintain many scattered plots within a nearby arca.
The areas of most frequent eradiation activity during the 96 -DB -13 grant period were
Hawaiian Acres (8x), Fern Forest (7x), Fern Acres (6x), Orchidland (6x), Volcano (Sx),
Pepeekeo (Sx), Kapoho (4x), Waipunalei (4x), Maulua Gulch (4x), Hakalau (4x), Pahoa
(4x), Waawaa (3x), Mountain View (3x), Kaiwiki (3x), Honomu (3x), Ookala (3x),
Pauuilo (3x), Kaumana (3x), Panacwa (3x), Kapoho (3x), and Laupahoehoe (3x).
Table 10 below provides an overview of eradiation performance during the 96 -DB -13
grant period. Figures were compiled from a memorandum to the Legislative Auditor
dated November S, 1998 from Hawaii County Police Chief Wayne Carvalho on FY97-98
(July 1, 1997—June 30, 1998) eradiation field operations, dates, locations, assisting
agencies and statistics, and a fax from Lt. Henry Tavares, Vice Section, dated June I S,
1999.
29
O U
Y
4 q
W
Q�Q
Y
oq
Z<O
j$R(
�
ff�jj
dy
Q
LLA
LL
g
4�+
A
r.
3
..
A
O
a
wi
$
3
x
s
LL
a
YY
W
Jnr
N
�D
a
D
�D
D
D
D
sD
8
iii
^
t
p
{L}^
p
q
•^
r
ye�
'Jq
y1pP
` p
pP
+ p�
N
�
TI
91_PV
eq
1
U
F'
O
n
No herbicidal eradication missions were conducted by the Hawaii County Police
Department during the grant period.
A total of 100 arrests were reported for "marijuana cultivation;" all other arrests were
reported for "multiple/other charges." Among reported seizures of forfeited non -drug
assets were four (4) vehicles valued at $25,000 and nineteen (19) currency seizures totaling
$29,199. Investigations of indoor growing operations involved the use of confidential
informants, F.L.I.R. (Forward -Looking Infralked) flights, utility company and
neighborhood checks, and "profiling."
Reports Submitted for Letter of Agreement 97.39
The Hawai'i County Police Department submitted monthly statistical reports to the DEA's
District Office in Honolulu for the LOA period extending from January I -December 31,
1997. Reports were submitted for January/97, February/97, March/97, April/97, April-
June/97, July-September/97 and October-November/97. No December/97 report was
submitted as no counter -cannabis field operations were conducted during the final month
of the Letter of Agreement. Cumulative statistical reporting for LOA 97-39 is shown in the
tables below:
TABLE 11: Project Reporting, LOA 97-39 (Outdoor Cultivation): 1/l/97-12/31197
OUTDOOR CULTIVATION
Plots Eradicated ........................................
Cultivated Plants Eradicated .......................
Ditchweed Eradicated .................................
Bulk/Processed Marijuana Seized (POUNDS).
Arrests
State Charges .....................................
Federal Charges .................................
Value of Asset Seizures
Cash.................................................
Real Estate .........................................
Other (weapons, vehicles, equipment, etc.)
Total..................................................
Weapons Seizures
Firearms..............................................
Other (booby traps) ................................
Total...................................................
Herbicide Eradication
Plots Eradicated ....................................
Number of Plants Eradicated ...................
Civil Air Patrol (CAP) Data
Number of Missions Flown ......................
Number of Flight Hours ...........................
Cannabis Plants Located ........................
Number of Plots Located .........................
6,517
260,425
0
39.4
496
599
$18,456.51
0
$41,775.00
$60,231.51
40
1
41
DATA SOURCE: Hawaii County Polite Deparbient 6 D.E.A.
31
TABLE 12: Project Reporting, LOA 97-39 (Indoor Cultivation): 1/1/97-12/31/97
INDOOR CULTIVATION
Indoor Grow - Total .......................................
3
Plants Eradicated ...............................
709
Bulk/Processed Marijuana Seized (POUNDS).
0
Number of Seizures related to Green
40
Merchant lead list .....................................
0
Arrests
State Charges ........................... 6 persons/6
arrests
Federal Charges ...........................0 persons/o
arrests
Value of Asset Seizures
Cash..................................................
0
Real Estate ..........................................
0
Other (weapons, vehicles, equipment, etc.) .
0
Total..................................................
0
Weapons Seizures
Firearms ..............................................
0
Other (booby traps) ................................
0
Total...................................................
0
TOTALS: Outdoor and Indoor Eradication
Plants ...................................................
261.134
Bulk/processed Marijuana Seized ...............
39.4 lbs.
Arrests......................................................
605
Weapons...................................................
40
Assets .............................................
$60.231.51
DATA SOURCE: Hawaii County Police Department b D.E.A.
During 1997, no samples of confiscated cannabis plants were sent to the University of
Mississippi Cannabis Project for THC level (potency) testing, as provided for in the terms
of Letter of Agreement 97-39. However, one sample was sent to the University of
Mississippi for analysis during the previous grant year (August, 1996). The laboratory
analysis, on file at the Police Department, separately analyzed Icaf and bud samples for
percentage of chemicals and showed a high THC content of 14.08%. According to DEA
Senior Special Agent Thomas K. Aiu, submittal of confiscated cannabis samples to the
Mississippi Cannabis Project is not a high priority activity. He affirmed, however, that
marijuana used as evidence in federal prosecution cases is uniformly submitted to DEA's
San Francisco laboratory for complete analysis.
Chemical analysis of Hawaii -grown marijuana is not a law enforcement priority, in part,
because Hawaii, unlike many other states where the DEA conducts DCE/SP eradication
activities, has no reported "ditchwecd" or wild, untended, low potency marijuana or hemp
plants. A 1996 report by the Vermont State Auditor on DEA's Vermont DCE/SP revealed
that nationally, the DCE/SP eradicated 419,660,022 ditchwecd plants and 3,OS6.504
cultivated marijuana plants. In marked contrast, DCE/SP in Hawaii, with less than 6%
32
($520,000) of the total 1996 DCE/SP national budget ($9,241.169), accounted for 170,0 of
all the cultivated marijuana eradicated natiomvide.
Examination Of Statistical Reporting
For the purposes of this study, FY 97-98 counter -cannabis mission data prepared by the
Police Department were matched against newspaper articles published in the Honolulu
Advertiser and Hawaii Tribunc-Herald during the period of field operations extending
from July 29, 1997 to June 10, 1998. The numbers of eradicated plants indicated in Police
Department press releases were accurately reported by the newspapers during the survey
period. However, several miscounts discovered by the Legislative Auditor's Office
(discussed below) occurred during the survey period.
In addition to reporting the number of plants eradicated, the news media also reported the
area(s) where operations had taken place, the agencies assisting in the operations, related
arrests, interviews with police officials, and Police Department telephone numbers to
contact with comments and complaints about operations. A police phone number
appeared in the Hawaii Tribunc-Hcrald on 8/10/97, 8/12/97, 8/14/97, 9/4/97,
10/15/97,10/24/97,10/26/97,10/30/97,11/14/97,11/16/97,4/8/98,5/13/98,
S/17/98, 6/11/98 and in the Honolulu AdverHscron 6/ 12/98.
A second area of examination for this study was a reconciliation of Police Department
Evidence and Property (E&P) Reports against the Police Department's reported CCFO
Operations information presented in Table 10, which is a compilation of the final report.
[Note: E&P Reports for West Hawaii had not been submitted to the Auditor's Office as
of this writing. j
Dated E&P reports completed by Vice Section officers record the number of marijuana
plants recovered during each CCFO, the range of plant height, CCFO number, areas of
operations, and date of disposal of seized plants. The signature and badge number of the
officer witnessing the final disposal of plants is provided in the "Chain of Custody" section
on each E&P.
In adding E&P report totals for CCFO's conducted during July 29-31, 1997, the
Legislative Auditor's Office found a discrepancy of 8,000 plants in the officially reported
total. The error was carried forward in subsequent reports submitted to the State
Attorney General. Five E&P reports were completed for the mission days, recording a
total of 39,911 eradicated plants. However, this total was recorded as 39,911 plants in
later reports, an ovcrcount of 8,000 plants. In response to an inquiry from the Auditor's
Office, the Police Department indicated that the miscount was due to a typographical error
and acknowledged that the error was carried forward in subsequent reports.
Additionally, a discrepancy in the count of eradicated plants during mission dates
September 9-I1, 1997 was noted by the Legislative Auditor's Office. In a telephone
33
9
conversation with Legislative Auditor Connie Kiriu on August 12, 1999, Lt. Henry Tavares
explained that the reporting error resulted from (I) omitting a search warrant E&P Report
for 243 plants on September 10, 1997 from mission totals; and (2) a typographcal error
which showed a plant count of 7,573 instead of 7,372 plants eradicated on September 11,
1997. Accordingly, instead of the 14,777 plants initially reported, the corrected mission
total should be 14,576 plants.
Subsequently, the Legislative Auditor requested the Police Department to provide a
"narrative description of exactly how plants are totaled, from ground team reports all the
way through the entry of totals on E&P reports and reporting forms submitted to DEA and
the Attorney General." In a -memorandum to the Legislative Auditor dated August 8,
1999, Lt. Henry Tavares, Hilo Vice Section, provided the following response:
"Each officer involved in a Counter -Cannabis Field Operation is responsible for
his or her own count of plants. The officers, in turn, report their plant count to
their team leader, usually a sergeant or detective. The team leaders then report
to the section commander—that is, to me in Area I (Hamakua-Ka'u) and to Lt.
Robert Hickcox in Area 11 (North Kohala through Kona). Lt. Hickcox and I then
report the totals to the Criminal Investigation Division police reporter, who
enters the data into the computer for retrieval for future reports."
Significant Investigations, Arrests and Seizures
The second project goal of Grant 96 -DB -13 involved uncovering "large scale marijuana and
distribution operations" and the arrest and prosecution of "those responsible." Likewise,
the activities authorized by LOA 97-39 included intelligence gathering related to "the illicit
possession and distribution of marijuana, investigation of "trafficking of controlled
substances," and arrest and prosecution of "defendants charged with violation of the
controlled substances laws."
Accounts of significant investigations, arrests, and seizures are provided in the following
narrative summaries reported to the Department of the Attorney General during the grant
period:
• On April 24, 1997 over 300 plants along with 8.7 pounds of processed marijuana were
found at a residence in Kukuihaele. Forfeiture proceedings of the property were under
discussion with the Prosecutor's Office.
• On April 26, 1997 a multi-agencv stakeout at a marijuana patch in Kapapala resulted in
the arrest of five adults and the recovery of 60 plants and 0.9 pounds of dried
marijuana. The investigation resulted in the forfeiture of two vehicles.
• On April 27, 1997 an indoor grow operation at a Kealakekua house was discovered
when the residence caught fire due to tampering with an electrical meter bypass. I S7
plants were found. The house was totally destroyed. Police report that the suspect in
the case fled the state.
34
• On June 12, 1997 approximately one pound of dried marijuana packaged for
distribution was recovered along with 121 plants at a residence in Volcano.
• On August 28, 1997 police arrested an adult male in Puna in connection with a
"controlled delivery" of two pounds of processed marijuana mailed from New Mexico.
Police reported that "indications were that the marijuana was going to be re -packaged
and sold as "Hawai'i Grown" marijuana for a higher price.
• On September 10, 1997 an indoor growing operation with 324 plants was found at a
residence in Kukuihaele. Forfeiture proceedings of the property were reported under
discussion with the Prosecutor's Office.
• On September 11, 1997 over 2 lbs. of dried, packaged marijuana and 151 plants were
recovered at a residence in Mountain View.
• On November 7, 1997 a male suspect was arrested in connection with the recovery of
I.5 lbs. of processed marijuana following execution of a search warrant at a Kona
residence.
• On November 28, 1997 two females were arrested and 7.4 ounces of dried marijuana
were recovered after a search warrant was executed at a residence in Kona.
• On January 6, 1998 a search warrant was executed at a residence in Kapoho, resulting
in the arrest of a male party and recovery of 121 marijuana plants.
• On January 15, 1998 three persons were arrested following execution of a search
warrant at a South Kona residence where 4.4 lbs. of processed marijuana and 97 plants
were found.
• On February 25, 1998 a male was arrested after a search warrant was executed at his
home in Hilo; 2 lbs. of processed marijuana were recovered.
• During the early months of 1998, East Hawaii vice personnel continued
"maintenance" missions using only a DEA helicopter to conduct aerial reconnaissance
and manually eradicate plants on foot. These missions, conducted in remote areas
away from residences, were reported to be quite successful.
• On April 7, 1998 police executed a search warrant at a Puna residence where over 300
plants were seized (both outdoor and indoor), along with three pounds of processed
marijuana and indoor growing equipment. Federal prosecution of the defendants in
this case was reported pending.
• During an April 6-9, 1998 sweep in Puna, police discovered a "sophisticated indoor
growing operation" in a Fern Forest house. One rifle and over 300 plants were seized.
A 38 -year old man arrested in connection with the Fern Forest growing operation was
later charged with marijuana cultivation in federal court.*
j * NOTE: In response to an inquiry from the Legislative Auditor, Police Chief Wayne G.
Carvalho explained that .while every investigation conducted by the Hawaii Police
Department has the potential for State charges, several factors arc considered before
Federal charges are sought. These include the history and immigration status of the
defendant, the violence involved, the number of weapons recovered, the complexity of the
organization, the seizure of potential assets, and the amount and type of drugs recovered.
35
The investigation is discussed with an agent from the Drug Enforcement Administration
who in turn presents the circumstances of the case to an Assistant United States Attorney
(AUSA). After reviewing the investigation, a decision is made by the AUSA whether the
case will be adopted and prosecuted in Federal Court.]
The April mission cited above coincided with the start of a new harvest season, according
to acting police vice squad commander Lt. Henry Tavares. Noting that a drought had not
appeared to deter marijuana growers, Tavares told the Honolulu Advertiser that "there
seems to be a lot of plants out there again this year."
Several booby traps were encountered during the reporting period. During field
operations in Kapoho on July 30, 1997, police encountered a spring -action booby trap
designed to drive a nail at an intruder. Another booby trap—sharpened sticks lodged to
injure intruders—was discovered in a patch located above Hakalau during field operations
conducted August I I.14, 1997. Sharpened bamboo punji sticks were also discovered in a
Kaiwiki marijuana patch on November 14, 1997. However, despite police reports of
booby traps found during eradication missions, all Police Department progress reports to
the State Attorney General and U.S. Office of Justice Programs stated that "no significant
problems were encountered" during the reporting period.
Finally, in addition to the eradication missions led by the Hawaii County Police
Department, county police officers also assisted several noteworthy missions led by the
State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. These missions involved
eradication of marijuana cultivated on public lands. In its 1998 Annual Report on Byrne
Memorial Formula Grant Program Activities, the State Attorney General acknowledged
the Hawaii County Police Department for its role in a December, 1997 five-day mission
led by DLNR's Hawaii Branch during which 79,833 plants were eradicated. Another
DLNR five-day mission in March, 1998 resulted in the eradication of 47,117 plants, the
arrest of an adult male charged with commercial promotion of marijuana, and the seizure
of a pick-up truck valued at $9,800. In addition to Hawai'i County police officers, the
DLNR-led missions utilized personnel from DEA, the National Park Service, and the
Hawaii National Guard.
Task Force Meetings and Training
Throughout the grant period, the Task Force held bi-monthly meetings, facilitated by the
Drug Enforcement Administration, to coordinate missions, share information, and provide
training. Meeting dates were as follows: July 24.25, 1997 in Lihue, Kauai; September 18-
19, 1997 in Honolulu, Oahu; December 4-5 in Kona, Hawaii; March IS, 1998 in
Houston, Texas; and May 28-29, 1998 in Wailuku, Maui. According to former Vice
Commander Lt. Chad Fukui, standing subcommittees dealt with (1) helicopter operations;
(2) indoor growing; (3) forfeiture; (4) equipment; (5) training; and (6) legislative
concerns. Coordinated efforts and frequent task force meetings were credited with the
36
development and maintenance of "effective guidelines, relative to reconnaissance and
marijuana eradication missions and communication, in the sharing of information."
Five Task Force officers attended the annual conference of the Drug Enforcement
Administration's Domestic Cannabis Eradication/ Suppression Program in Houston from
March 17-19. 1998.
Specialized training attended by -Cask Force members included aerial observer training in
Hilo on January 23, 1998 (7 officers); stakeout and marijuana enforcement training in
Honolulu from March 30 -April 3, 1998 (4 officers); one officer attended a forfeiture
training in Honolulu on April 13-16, 1998. Ongoing training of task force members
reportedly assured "the safety of our Personnel, the quality of our investigations, the
professional conduct during operations, and the standardization of work practices and use
of equipment."
Members from all Task Force agencies also attended a DCE/SP training held March 3-7,
1997 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. In 1997, the Department of the Attorney General
reported that DEA and the Hawaii National Guard provided in-house training for Task
Force members on rappel and patrolling techniques, booby trap detection, tracking and
counter -tracking methods, safety observer requirements, aerial reconnaissance, helicopter
safety, eradication and long -lining techniques, and surveillance techniques (including
utilization of proper equipment). The AG reported that Task Force members also
provided "practical exercises for efficiency rating tests for private pilots."
Project Oversight and Monitoring
Project reports submitted to the State Attorney General throughout the period of Grant
96 -DB -13 and a project monitoring report dated November 2, 1998 by Earline Yokoi,
Criminal Justice Planning Specialist, Crime Prevention and Justice Assistance Division,
demonstrate that the Hawaii County Police Department broadly fulfilled the goals and
objectives specified under Grant 96 -DB -13 to the satisfaction of the grantor agency, the
Department of the Attorney General.
The Police Department's final project report concluded: "Grant funds have enabled
Hawaii County to continue a vigorous and proactive eradication program resulting in an
increase in the number of marijuana plants seized." Increased arrest statistics and seizures
were noted. Reported inter -agency assistance resulted in several statewide coordinated
enforcement efforts, including stakeout and search warrant operations and/or
investigations.
One educational component of grant -funded activities—vice officers continue to be in
demand as speakers at schools, community policing and other community groupswas
cited as a positive outcome/impact indicator.
37
Finally, the Department's Gnal report acknowledged that "culttyatton of high-grade
marijuana continues in Hawaii" and "demand for 'Hawai'i-grosynI marijuana continues to
be steady hr' 'dealers' and consumers," while asserting that "continued manual eradication
methods (arc] the most effective means in reducing product availability."
Additionally, a site visit and monitoring report on Statewide Marijuana Eradication project
96 -DB -13 was performed by Earline Yokoi, Criminal justice Planning Specialist, Crime
Prevention and Justice Assistance Division, Department of the Attorney General. Ms.
Yokoi conducted her Hawaii County site visit on June 23, 1998 and issued her report on
November 2, 1998. A copy of Ms. Yokoi's report is Found in Appendix C of this study.
In her coyer letter dated November 4, 1998 to the Haw-ai'i Counts Police Department,
Ms. Yokoi stated that based upon her review of Project 96 -DB -13, "no corrective action is
necessary." Her monitoring report noted that all applicable project files were maintained
by Police Department support stalk. During the 6/23/98 site visit, Ms. Yokui spot-
checked documentation of overtime; travel/training requests, receipts and per diem; an
RFP, Notices to Proceed and contract extensions for private helicopter rentals; and meal
and equipment maintenance requisitions. Ms. Yokoi found that "fiscal reports are
submitted in a timely manner and are accurately completed." Fier report detailed dates of
eradication missions, including assignment of o113cen o1T-island, various trainings, and
attendance at the annual DEA DCE/SP conference in Houston, Teas. The sole problem
noted in lets. Yokui's report was "obtaining Council approval for the acceptance of Byrne
Grant funds "due to "objections from the pro -marijuana advocates."
Finally, Nis. Yokoi observed that "unlike the Ilonolulu Police Department, which has
specialized sections within the Narcotics/Vice Division, the Vice Section of the Hasyat't
County Police Department is responsible for drug investigations, marijuana eradication,
prostitution, gambling, ctc." Noting a "shortage of manpower to handle all these areas,"
she concluded, "the task force is an asset for the Vice Section, because resources, including
manpower and helicopter services, are shared."
No comparable project -ending monitoring report was produced by the Drug Enforcement
Administration for LOA 97-39. Rather, as explained by DEA Senior Special Agent
Thomas K. Aiu, DEA's satisfaction with the performance of the Hawaii County Police
Department is evidenced by issuance of ongoing funding and letters of agreement to
support the activities of the Statewide Marijuana Eradication bask Force.
FINDINGS Re: STUDY OBJECTIVE #I
• Based upon the project reports revicwcd fur Grant 96 -DB- I I and LOA 97- 39, and the
expressed sattslaction of the State Atturnev General and Drug Enforcement
Adntamtrat ion, lilt, staled goads Inr each grant were mel by the flaccaii County Police
Departmentll.c of grant fund, enabled the I ICI'D to eradicate sub.tantial amounts of
marijuana, including recovered pr.urssctl marijuana, lherebv rvdtlt ing its availability
38
and market distribution. Collaboration with DLNR contributed to substantial
eradication results on state lands in Hawaii County. In its December, 1998 Annual
Report on Byrne Memorial Formula Grants, the Department of the Attorney General
reported that "in March 1998, Hawaii was recognized as being second in the nation,
after Tennessee, in the amount of marijuana eradicated."
• The coordination, personnel, and resources afforded by the Statewide Marijuana
Eradication Task Force benefited Hawaii County's undermanned Police Department.
• Moreover, project activities addressed all of the nine objectives stated in Grant
96 -DB -13 and four of the five objectives outlined in LOA 97-39. The one activity not
undertaken—submittal of marijuana samples to the University of Mississippi Cannabis
Project—was not considered important by DEA, the grantor agency.
• We found that two instances of an admitted clerical error resulting in miscounts of
eradicated marijuana point to the need for a written reconciliation procedure for the
daily tally of marijuana plants eradicated by Task Force personnel during field missions.
The reconciliation procedure should assure that plant counts reported on Evidence and
Property Reports are verified prior to issuance of required grant statistical reports and
eventual annual cumulative reporting by the DEA and the Department of the Attorney
General. The procedure should specify how marijuana seized as a result of search
warrants is added to the overall count of plants attributed to grant -supported
eradication activity.
• Based upon the stated goals and objectives contained in each funding agreement, the
Hawaii County Police Department executed all performance requirements. As noted
previously, an examination of "the effectiveness of each grant program" is hindered by
a lack of well-defined and quantifiable measurements and benchmarks. However,
federal implementation of a newly developed Performance Management of
Effectiveness (PME) System should address this concern in the future. (A detailed,
multi-year analysis of the effectiveness of marijuana eradication efforts is provided in
the examination of Study Objective #6.)
39
STUDY OBJECTIVE #2: Examine the expenditures of each grant program to determine
whether funds were spent in a manner consistent with the
budgeted amounts stated in the grants and whether the
expenditures further the stated goals and objectives of each grant
and as authorized by the grantor.
Financial Review of Project 96 -DB -13 April 1997 -June 1998
The review of Grant 96 -DB- 13 consisted of comparing financial reports titled "Department
of the Attorney General: Project Expenditures & Obligations Report" with County of
Hawaii monthly trial balances identified by account number 5219.48, and other financial
documents such as purchase orders and invoices. Four quarterly financial reports and a
final financial report were prepared by the County of Hawaii Police Department and
submitted to the Attorney General's Office. The Financia/ Guide prepared by the U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of the Comptroller was used as a
reference.
The grant's approved budget of 5144,392 contained three budget categories: (1) Salaries
and Wages ($36,098), (2) Transportation/Subsistence (S7,200) and (3) Other Costs
($101,094). Subcategories provided further details of the budget. Variances among the
budget categories are permitted as set forth in the Financial Guide, Chapter 5, Part III,
page 43: "Movement of dollars between approved budget categories is approved up to 10
percent of the total budget cost (total award amount) as last approved by the awarding
agency provided there is no change in project scope."
Total expenditures reported for the grant were 5144,392, equal to the approved budget
for the grant. An examination of a wide sampling of the financial documents follows:
(I) Salaries & Wages
This budget category contains the prorated straight time wages for five police
personnel (Lieutenant, Detective, two Police Officer Ill's, and a Police Reporter)
who spent time managing and implementing the marijuana -related operations.
The County's required 25% match of the total funding was met in full by the Police
Department's $36,098 payment of straight time wages in this category. These
expenses, while chargeable to the grant, do not appear in the grant's trial balances.
Instead, they are reflected in the various trial balances of the Police Department's
salaries and wages accounts. To calculate the County's portion, the Department adds
the wages of each participating police personnel during the period of the grant and
multiplies the total amount by a certain percentage (in this grant year it was 13.7%) to
reach the match amount. The Police Department takes the position that much of the
activities covered under the grant would be performed during the regular course of its
duties regardless of the grant. An alternative suggested by Criminal Justice Planning
40
Specialist Earline Yokoi stated: "Suggested to Lt. Fukui that a simpler way to calculate
the match is to use the salaries of all the officers who participate in the eradication
missions during the project period. The missions can be those initiated by the Hawaii
County Police Department or those initiated by the other police departments that the
Hawai'i County Police Department's officers assist in."
(2) Transportation and Subsistence
This budget category contains travel expenses for personnel, including airfare, per
diem, and ground transportation, while on marijuana eradication missions or training.
Total expenditures were $7,200 or 4.99% of the total grant award.
An example of the expenses claimed provides insight into this budget category as it
relates to the broad goal of marijuana eradication. Per diem expenses for two out -of -
district police officers who assisted Hilo police officers with a counter-cannais mission
were documented by Confirming Purchase Authorizations C -45S34 and C-45535.
Per diem for the two officers was calculated as follows: Length of the mission (four
days from October 21-24, 1997) multiplied by the daily per diem rate ($80) equals a
$320 per diem expense for the two officers. At times, officers were required to
travel off island to assist other jurisdictions with counter -cannabis missions. For
example, a Hawaii County police officer assisted Maui police on a mission from
September 17-19, 1997. He was paid $240 for per diem (S80/day x 3 days) and
reimbursed $108.46 for car expenses, including $90.96 for car rental and $ 17.50 for
gasoline. These expenses for per diem and travel are documented on Confirming
Purchase Authorization C-45454 dated October 21, 1997.
(3) Other Costs
A. Subcateeorv—Aircraft Rental
The largest budgeted expense was for aircraft rental. Civilian helicopters for aerial
surveillance and marijuana eradication missions were procured through a request for
proposal process.
Expenditures for this category totaled $81,300 or 56.30% of total grant expenditures.
The total expenses reported in the financial reports for aircraft rental matches the trial
balance amounts that is, all expenditures for helicopter rentals can be traced to
either a Confirming Purchase Order Authorization or to a "Request to Adjust
Expenditures on Trial Balance."
An example of the expenses in this budget category can be found under Financial
report #2 where a rental charge totaling 524,100 was traced to two transactions with
vendor Mauna Kea Helicopters. Confirming Purchase Order Authorizations C-45340
41
and C-45342 show expenditures of S 12,075 and $12,025 respectively. Mission dates
were from September 4.6, 1997 and from September 17-19, 1997.
B. Subcategorv--Overtime
Overtime wages were paid to employees who work more than eight hours per day or
more than forty hours per week. This extra time was chargeable for travel,
investigations, eradication operations, and program management.
A total of $12,339 or 8.SS% of the total grant amount, was spent on overtime.
As an example of our review of this subcategory, financial Report #4 shows an
expense of $8,285 for overtime. We reviewed "Payroll Adjustment No. 50," which
transferred overtime charges of $8,285 from various police department salaries and
wages accounts to the grant trial balance. This document decreases expenses in
various police department salaries and wages accounts and increases expenses in the
grant trial balance account.
C. Subcategory—Hazardous Pay
This subcategory is for special pay for personnel involved with aerial observation or
with rappel operations from helicopters. Like overtime, it is charged to the grant trial
balances by a document titled "Expenditure Adjustments to Payroll Earnings
Register."
$929, or .64% of total expenditures, was charged to this subcategory. No documents
relating to hazardous pay were examined.
D. Subcateorv—Training
This subcategory included expenses for tuition and registration fees to attend
workshops, seminars and conferences. There were no charges to this subcategory,
although $ 300 was budgeted.
E. Subcategory—Ecuioment
Items budgeted under this subcategory were for the purchase of rappel equipment to
support personnel in the field during counter -cannabis missions.
Total charges to this line item were $1,035 or .72% of total expenditures.
As an example of this expense subcategory, a review of Purchase Order #54440 dated
April 4, 1997 indicates that various climbing supplies were purchased, including
gloves, ropes, helmets, and earbiners.
42
F. Subcateeorv—Miscellaneous SUDDIIes
This subcategory covers office supplies and field items and supplies which may be needed
to support personnel in the field.
Total expenditures for this subcategory were $1,034.09, or 0.72% of the total budget.
An example of an expense in this subcategory included two toolboxes for a 1994 Ford
pickup. The toolboxes were purchased for $794.79, according to Purchase Order
#64177 dated June l5, 1998.
G. Subcateeory--Confidential Funds
According to the Budget Explanation section of the grant, these funds were earmarked
for "the purchase of evidence, information and/or services."
$3,000 passed through the grant trial balance via Purchase Order #62943 and is
described as a full payment to the Hawaii Police Department. The $3,000 expense was
2.08% of the total grant expenditures.
H. Subcateeorv—Equipment Maintenance
Funds in this subcategory were for repair and maintenance of County vehicles used in
the course of surveillance or counter cannabis work.
A total of $1,059, or .73% of total expenditures, was spent on equipment repairs.
A summary of funding sources, project expenditures and corresponding variances for
Grant 96 -DB -13 is shown in the table below prepared by the Legislative Auditor's Office.
43
ui
0
t5
uj D
ci
CC
CL
Qa
z u
uj LU
9L CL
X
LU
LU UJ
S
S
0 x
WIL
=lb
0—
co
ci g
*a f- 0
ca L) c"
LU -LU2
ci
u 0 LU
CC m z
c I
M IL
0 z
U)
z 0 cr
3
U.
LU
ui Z
Lu
LU
c;
ci
S
S
O
ci g
ci
a,
cc
t ci
ci
a
ai
m
s9 2
a
S
C C;
I
9
9 9
i
C
i
ci O=a
L
9 aS
a g 8a
0
g
0
"a
cs O6
6 6 -i
6
6
si
g
9 003
9
O
O G
O O c;
0
M
OC
U
Financial Review of Letter of Agreement 9739 (201.5219.31), Jan -Dec, 1997
The financial review of LOA -97-39 consisted of comparing the financial reports "Domestic
Cannabis Eradication Suppression Program, GFAN-97-9008, 1997 Monthly Accounting
Forms" with County of Hawaii monthly trial balances, identified by account number
5219.31, and examination of selected financial documents such as confirming purchase
orders and invoices. Monthly Financial reports (except for the first report which covered
the first six months of the grant period, January -June 1997) were prepared by the Police
Department and submitted to the DEA.
Unlike Grant 96 -DB -13, Letter of Agreement 97-39 does not contain a budget for the
$245,000 of funding received. Rather, the agreement specifies allowable expense
categories for aircraft rental, vehicle rental, supplies/services, overtime, travel/per diem,
commercial rental, equipment, and purchase of information/ evidence.
Our examination is summarized as follows:
Aircraft Rental
At $168,226 (68.666/6), charges for aircraft (helicopter) rentals were the largest cost
item of this agreement. Total expenses for aircraft rentals as shown in the trial
balances match the amounts reported in the agreement. The table below shows the
vendors, operation dates, and amount of expenditures.
TABLE 14: AIRCRAFT RENTAL EXPENDITURES for LOA 97-39: JANUARY -DECEMBER 1997
REDU9mON CONTROL TRANS OPERATION
Nt7M1ER NUM6ER DATE VENDOR OATES DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
P 74621 C-30945 611697 WMd.d A.Wl.. Me, 4/22.4125197 Field OWFMM$ $14,690
1 69
74632 C-30952 97 Mlanwnd McAcoo1M$ 412 3 4 2 519 7 Field Opwenon4 $14,300
174761 C-40062 Wtlln wndw$rd A"ianw. Inc. 5/35/697 Field OW.9,M$ $14.626
643.616
P 745212 C.40645 912797 Windwrd Avuuen. Me. 411"113197 Fnld OpM4nlM. 622.100
$22.100
P 90611
C•40194
V2997
WMdwFrd AMallen, Me.
11111.414.811 T197
Field ppMagnF
$27.560
190651
C-40936
9/397
Malone Ru NelicpplN.. Inc.
7121197
$Yrv.M4nC1/Npl
6 1.138
PM24
C-40972
9997
InurNad Nakeel.r$
71311117,11104197
Field Oine.p.$
$20.550
P00797
C-45147
9110197
MmMe Ru 6Nlicapi.r$, Inc.
8111-Wl497
Field OpaWpn.
915.900
P10798
0-45144
911197
Wind.Nd A...,.. Me.
$111 811419 7
Field Ope allpn.
$12,545
647.292
Pi C45741 1111897 wind~d Av%MM. Me. 1012:-1012 49 7 Field Op.r.pen$ 916.015
DATA SOURCE: Hawaii County Finance Oepenment
45
TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR AIRCRAFT RENTAL $168.226
Supplies and Services
A sampling of expenses for 'Supplies and Services' were reviewed. An example of the
type of expenses charged to this category was found in Confirming Purchase Order
C-40229 further detailed below. The expenses were associated with a counter -
cannabis mission conducted by 22 personnel from May 3 -May 8, 1997.
TABLE 15: Confirming Purchase Order C-40229, (June 13, 1997)
Date Vendor Description Amount
5/7/97
Kamuela Deli
plate lunches
$136.00
5/5/97
Costco
Soda, duet tape, gloves
$102.26
5/6/97
Costco
Ice, coffee supplies
$
20.21
5/6/97
KMART
Ice
$
2.69
5/6/97
Honokahau Marina
Ice
$
4.50
5/7/97
Honokahau Marina
lee
$
4.50
5/6/97
Longs Drug Store
Soft drinks
$
18.00
5/7/97
Longs Drug Store
Soh drinks
$
18.00
5/7/97
Safeway
Doughnuts
$
9.35
TOTAL: $315.51
DATA SOURCE: Hawail County Finance Department
vertime
Overtime in the amount of 534,652 comprised 14.11% of total grant expenditures.
Charges for overtime pay (over eight hours per day or more than forty hours per
week) were charged to the grant trial balances by a document titled "Expenditure
Adjustments to Payroll Earnings Register," transferring overtime charges from various
police salary and wages accounts to the grant trial balance account.
An example of these adjustments was noted in Payroll Adjustment #37, dated June
30, 1997, which transferred $21,461 in overtime wages from various police salaries
and wages accounts to the grant trial balance. This amount of overtime was reported
on the January 1, 1997 -June 30, 1997 financial report.
PUP[
This budget item is defined as the purchase of evidence or information/and or
services.
Total PE/ PI expenditures were $ 10,000 or 4.08% of total expenditures.
Two separate charges were made to this category. On September 2, 1997, through
Purchase Order #57568, the grant trial balance shows an expense of $6,000,
described as a full payment to the Hawai'i Police Department. This expenditure was
46
reported on the September 1997 financial report. On December 23, 1997, through
Purchase Order #60285, the grant trial balance shows an entry of $4,000 paid to the
Hawai'i Police Department and again described as full payment to the Hawaii County
Police Department. This amount was reported in the December 1997 financial
report. No documentation for PE/P[ expenditures was available for the Legislative
Auditor's Office to examine as the information is considered confidential.
TraveWer Diem
Travel and per diem expenses were chargeable to eradication missions or training,
including conferences-.md workshops.
A total of $17,556 or 7.17% was spent on travel and per diem.
Specifically, the Legislative Auditor's Office looked at travel and per diem expenses
for the Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program Conference held in
Albuquerque, New Mexico from March 3-7, 1997. $4,710 was spent for travel and
per diem for this conference. A detailed listing of expenditures for the four Police
personnel who attended this conference is listed below:
TABLE 16
DOMESTIC CANNABIS ERADICATION/SUPPRESSION PROGRAM CONFERENCE
ALBUQUERQUE, NEX MEXICO - MAY 3-8,1997
GRANT 97.30: JANUARY -DECEMBER, 1997
CONTROL
TRANS
WORKSHOP
NUMBER
DATE
VENDOR
DATES
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
C-29989
2/18/97
Business Manager
3/4/97.3/6/97
P/D 3 A days @4130
$455
C-30391
3/17197
Business Manager
3/4/97-3/6/97
Taxi Fare
$ 9
C-29990
2/18/97
Police Officer 1
3/4/97.3/6/97
P/D 3 X days @4130
$585
C-30515
4/03/97
Police Officer 1
3/4/97.3/6/97
Car Rental & Gas
$ 46
C-29991
2/18/97
Police Officer 2
3/4/97.3/6/97
P/D 3 K days @4130
$585
C-30345
3/11/97
Police Officer 2
3/4/97.3/6/97
Car Rental
$ 97
C-29992
2/18/97
Police Officer 3
3/4/97.3/6/97
P/D 3 A days @$130
$585
PO 053788
3/05/97
Naomrs World Travel
3/4/97.3/6/97
Airfare 4. on. R/T_
$2.348
TRAVEL & PER DIEM EXPENDITURES FOR PROGRAM CONFERENCE $4,710
DATA SOURCE: Hawaii County Finance Department
No expenditures within the categories of Vehicle Rental, Commercial Rental or
Equipment were made during the agreement period.
A spreadsheet prepared by the Legislative Auditor's Office summarizes the financial
reports submitted for LOA 97-39 to the DEA Honolulu Office.
47
IR
Q
I
p
O
N
t0
N
.f1
O
OI
�'Iti
b
r
NQ
•
p
8
O
S
O
Yf
'
p
'
•-
0
N
•
O
O
M� 1
A
= y
8E
p
p
OI
•
.
f
N
0
O
W u
T
N
m
pl
G=
p
z
� A
p Zgrt
W
a
OL
W�G
o
3
r
�J1I
n
m
N
N
:I
N
m
•
m1
n
N CP
•
Ql
W T
i
f
Z
A
A
6P
W
A n
p
N
p
f
f
p
f
^
OI
"�f "�1
N
•
A
W Z
N
N
N
N
N
N
n
N
Q
FINDINGS re: STUDY OBJECTIVE #2
• Regarding Grant 96 -DB -13. Expenditures were made in accordance with grant terms
and conditions. Further, the Police Department complied with all financial reporting
requirements specified by the grant, including submittal of the County of Hawaii
Sin.lc Audit Rcoorts for the Fiscal Years Ending/unc 30, 1997and 1998, as required
by federal code.
The project monitoring report for Grant 96 -DB -13 dated November 2, 1998 by
Earline Yokoi, Criminal Justice Planning Specialist, provided oversight of budgeted
cost items including overtime, travel and training, helicopter rental, meals during
eradication missions, and equipment maintenance. Ms. Yokoi stated that "fiscal reports
are submitted in a timely manner and are accurately completed."
• The use of f 36,098 of the Police Department's Salaries and Wages to generate the
2S% match required for Grant 96 -DB -13 is prudent and appropriate. This match
represents a little over one-tenth of 1% of total Police Department expenditures
(528,409,124) in FY97.98.
•
Regarding LOA 97-39. Expenditures were made in allowable expense categories as
defined by the Letter of Agreement. A SS0,000 increase in the grant amount was
authorized by Amendment No. 1 to the Letter of Agreement, dated August 25, 1997.
• Because no County funds were attributed to the activities supported by LOA 97.39,
the supplemental funding of f24S,000 augmented the existing public safety initiatives
of the County Police Department.
Finally, we noted that the rigorous reporting and record-keeping requirements of these
grants, together with other department grants, may place additional workload on County
personnel not otherwise accounted for in grant administration.
49
STUDY OBJECTIVE #3: Determine whether the County Police Department has complied
with the obligations of each grant.
A variety of obligatory certifications, conditional agreements, and performance
requirements are attached to Grant 96 -DB -13 and LOA 97.39, respectively. For the
purposes of this study, these obligations are identified and examined for documented
compliance.
Grant Obligations for Grant 96 -DB -13
Certifications and agreements signed by Police Chief Wayne G. Carvalho on
September 27, 1996 and attached to Grant Agreement 96 -DB -13 with the Department of
the Attorney General are as follows:
(1) Certification of Non -Supplanting, relating to certification that federal funds will not be
used to supplant State, local or other non-federal funds that would, in the absence of
such federal aid, be made available for law enforcement, criminal justice, and victim
compensation and assistance activities.
(2) Acceptance of Conditions, relating to acceptance by the applicant agency jHCPD1 that
the grant project constitutes an official part of Hawai'i's Drug Control and System
Improvement Formula Grant Program established under Title VI, Subtitle C, Part E,
Subpart 1 of the Anti -Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-690). The applicant agrees
to conform with the general conditions and fiscal administration of grants under the
Act, any special conditions contained in the grant award, as well as general and fiscal
regulations of the Crime Prevention and Justice Assistance Division. Acceptance
further acknowledges that the grant may be terminated upon finding of a substantial
failure to comply with the foregoing provisions, application obligations, or non-
availability of funds.
(3) Certification of Non -Discrimination, relating to compliance by the applicant agency
with the non-discrimination requirements of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Title 11 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; Age Discrimination Act of 1975;
Department of Justice Nondiscrimination Regulations 28 CFR Part 42; and
Department of Justice regulations on disability discrimination, 28 CFR Part 35 and
Part 39.
(4) Ccrtifintion Regarding Drug -Free Workplace Requirements, relating to certification
by the Hawaii County Police Department that it will provide a drug-free workplace
by publishing a statement notifying employees of prohibited controlled substances and
actions taken against employees for violation of such prohibition; establishing a drug-
free awareness program; requiring employees engaged in the performance of the grant
s0
to abide by drug-free workplace conditions and to notify the employer of any criminal
drug statute conviction occurring in the workplace; timely notification to the
Department of the Attorney General of such notice of conviction and required follow-
up actions taken with respect to any convicted employee; and identification of the site
where work is performed in connection with this specific grant.
(S) Certification of Equal mptlogee Opportunity Plan on File, relating to certification
that the Hawai'i County Police Department has formulated an EEOP in accordance
with 28 CFR 42.301, et seq., subpart E, signed by the proper agency authority and
disseminated to all employees, and kept on file for review or audit by the cognizant
State planning agency or Office for Civil Rights, Office of Justice Programs as required
by relevant laws and regulations.
(6) Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension. Ineligibility and Vnluntary Exclusion
relating to certification by the lower tier participant [Hawai'i County Police
Department] that neither it nor its principals are presently debarred, suspended,
proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from
participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency.
(7) Certification Regarding Lobbyist, relating to certification that no appropriated Federal
funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to
influence an officer or employee of any Federal agency, member of Congress, officer
or employee of Congress, or an emplovee of a Member of Congress in connection
with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, Federal
loan, cooperative agreement, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan or
cooperative agreement.
(8) Confidential Funds Certification, relating to certification that the applicant has read the
effective edition of the Office of Justice Programs manual titled "Financial and
Administrative Guide for Grants," and agrees to abide by all the conditions for
confidential funds as set forth in the manual.
The contract for Project No. 96 -DB -13, dated July 31, 1997, by and between the
Department of the Attorney General, State of Hawaii ("Agency") and the Hawaii County
Police Department ("Grantee"), additionally assures that $36,098.00 are "available as
matching funds to provide the services under the contract," for which the grantee "shall
maintain records which clearly show the source, amount and the timing of match
contributions." In turn, the Department of the Attorney General agreed to pay the
Hawaii County Police Department, for services satisfactorily performed under the
contract, a sum not to exceed $108,294.00.
In its budget application for Grant 96 -DB -12, the Police Department identified five
position titles and their respective monthly salaries to represent its matching fund formula
In her November 2, 1998 monitoring report, Earline Yokoi suggested that "a simpler way
51
to calculate the match is to use the salaries of all the officers who participate in the
eradication missions during the project period." Ms Yokoi did not present any finding
requiring corrective action, however, with respect to the Police Department's 25% match
($36,098) of the total project budget ($14.4,392).
Obligations for Letter of Agreement 97.39
LOA 97.39 stipulated that "it is explicitly understood and agreed that Federal funds
provided to HCP under this agreement may not be used to defray costs relating to
herbicidal eradication of marijuana without the advance written consent of DEA." In
accordance with the provisions of LOA 97.39, no herbicidal eradication of marijuana was
conducted during field operations led by the Hawaii County Police Department.
The primary activity supported by federal grants—manual eradication of cultivated
marijuana plants—was efficiently performed by officers of the HCPD and resulted in
diminished availability and illicit commercial promotion of a controlled substance.
The agreement directed the HCPD to maintain complete and accurate reports, records and
accounts of all obligations and expenditures for a period of three ,years after termination of
the Agreement, subject to examination and audit by DEA, the U.S. Department of Justice
or the Comptroller General of the United States. As noted previously in this study,
required monthly statistical reports and accounting forms were submitted to the Drug
Enforcement Administration for LOA 97-39 and quarterly progress reports and
expenditure/obligation reports were submitted to the Department of the Attorney
General for Grant 96 -DB -17.
A completed form titled "Grantee Information for Access" to implement a data base of all
grants made by the U.S. Department of Justice was attached to the agreement. Execution
of OJP Form 4061/3, "Certification Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension, and
Other Responsibility Matters; and Drug Free Workplace Requirements," was a condition
of the agreement. Finally, the agreement stipulated that the HCP comply with Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1954, section SO4 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
and with all Department of Justice requirements relating to discrimination on the grounds
of race, color, creed, sex, age, national origin or handicap, and to equal employment
opportunities.
Within 60 days after termination of the Agreement, the Department agreed to submit
Standard Form 269, Financial Status Report, itemizing the breakdown of final
expenditures. A review of SF -269 forms for 1994, 1995, and 1996 Letters of Agreement
showed that cumulative expenditures matched annual allocations with no unohligated
balance of federal funds and were submitted within the 60 -day time frame after the
funding/grant period.
52
The agreement stipulated compliance with the audit requirements of OMB Circular A-128,
"Audits of State and Local Governments" (superceded by OMB Circular A-133 dated June
24, 1997). The County ofHiwai'i Singlc Audit Rcports for the Fiscal Ycar ended Junc 30,
/997and June 30, /998 were submitted in compliance with this audit requirement.
FINDINGS Re: STUDY OBJECTIVE #3
• The Hawaii County Police Department has compiled with the required obligations,
certifications, applicable laves, regulations, and provisions of grant contracts and
funding agreements supporting the activities of the Statewide Marijuana Eradication
Task Force and the Domestic Cannabis Eradication/ Suppression Program. We find no
evidence of non-compliance reported by the grantor agencies, the Department of the
Attorney General and the Drug Enforcement Administration, respectively.
U11
STUDY OBJECTIVE #4:
Internal Controls re: Confiscation and Disposal of Marijuana Seized During CCFOs
Marijuana not held as evidence in an ongoing investigation or arrest proceeding is
destroyed according to the Police Chiefs Evidence and Property Receipt and Procedure
memorandum 95.161 dated October 19, 1995. Section 9(e)(1) of the policy
memorandum directs that "the disposal of controlled substances shall be done immediately
in closed cases; destruction of marijuana shall be by burial at an approved location."
The recovery and disposal of marijuana confiscated during Counter -Cannabis Field
Operations was observed by Legislative Auditor staff during a site visit conducted on June
7, 1999. The site visit enabled Legislative Auditor staff to witness police conformance in
the field with the Department's internal written "Procedures for Marijuana Eradication
Operations" (see Appendix D). Aspects of police procedures relating to the confiscation
and disposal of marijuana seized during Counter -Cannabis Field Operations are
summarized as follows.
During Counter -Cannabis Field Operations, each police officer is held responsible for the
hand count of marijuana plants cut and retrieved for eventual disposal. Plant counts are
subsequently reported to the operations team leader, who then reports to an area section
commander. Presently, the section commander for Area I (Hamakua-Ka'u) is Lt. Henry
Tavares; the section commander for Arca If (North Kohala through Kona) is Lt. Robert
Hickcox. Section commanders report cumulative daily totals to the Criminal Investigation
Division police reporter, who enters the data into the computer for future reports.
Plants are collected in a pick-up truck throughout the day. When insertion teams operate
in inaccessible areas, plants are hoisted by helicopter and flown to a utility team truck or, at
the end of the day, flown directly to DEA's Hilo Aviation Facility.
All marijuana plants collected during Counter -Cannabis Field Operations in East Hawai'i
are brought daily to the DEA's Hilo Aviation Facility. Plants are placed inside a County
repair/dump truck kept on site for the duration of a multi -day mission. At night, the truck
is parked inside the locked hangar facility. On the final day of a CCFO mission, the truck is
driven to the Hilo landfill by the Department's CDL examiner, accompanied by at least
one police officer, usually a Vice or CID officer. A deep We is dug at the landfill and the
plants are buried and covered by landfill personnel. The burial procedure described by the
police renders the plants irretrievably inaccessible as "rubbish." Photos dated April 9, 1998
and May 4, 1998 and maintained by the Police Department document the procedure. An
identical procedure is undertaken for the burial of confiscated marijuana at the Kona Waste
Management landfill.
54
An Evidence and Property Report is completed recording the total number of marijuana
plants confiscated for each daily Counter -Cannabis Field Operation. A typical E&P Report
dated June 6, 1998 recorded the number of plants ("Quantity: 5,359"); height ("seedlings
to 9 feet"); Incident Type ("Commercial Promotion of Marijuana I"); a synopsis statement
("Listed items were recovered during Counter -Cannabis Field Operation No. 98-12 in the
District of South Hilo"); date, time and officer present at disposal and responsible for chain
of custody ("06-09.98/0800 Hours, Dct. Benton Bolos"); authorizing signature, date and
time for release of chain of custody ("Lt. Chadwick Fukui, 06/09/98, 0800 Hours"); and
signature, badge number and date of the approving officer for the completed E&P ("Lt.
Chadwick Fukui, Badge #33, 09/25/98"). Customarily, the block for "owner's name" is
recorded as "unknown" as plants are confiscated in remote areas with no suspects present.
Accordingly, the case status of the E&P report is recorded as "closed."
Marijuana separately seized or eradicated by DEA agents, apart from Task Force CCFO
missions, are logged and reported on DEA Form 7, "Report of Drug Property Collected,
Purchased or Seized."
Internal Controls re: Confiscation and Disposal of Marijuana Seized as Evidence
Marijuana seized as evidence is currently handled according to the provisions of the Hawai'i
County Police Chiefs memorandum 98-50, "Evidence and Property Receipt and
Procedure," Section XVI, "Controlled Substances." For the grants reviewed in this study,
the operative Evidence and Property Receipt and Procedure was memorandum 95-161
dated October 19, 1995. With regard to controlled substances, the two memorandums
provide identical instructions.
Controlled substances, including marijuana, arc submitted on a separate "E&P" receipt
from found property.
When an arrest is made or the case involves further investigation, large amounts of
marijuana arc dried in a secure location, weighed and/or counted and boxed before
submission to the Police Repository. Marijuana in excess of 10 pounds is destroyed upon
recommendation of the prosecutor after careful review of the case. If no arrest is made
and a case is closed, all harvested marijuana is .neighed and/or counted and boxed and
submitted to the Repository for immediate destruction.
Evidence recovered by the Vice Section or special detail in an ongoing investigation may be
held in their Temporary Repository upon approval by the Division/ Section Chief. The
memorandum directs that care is taken to ensure that the chain of custody is preserved for
all evidence held in the Repository.
Upon completion of necessary analysis, controlled substances analvzcd in the Crime
Laboratory are labeled, re -scaled in a container and turned over to the Repository for
storage.
55
When a sealed container or controlled substance is opened in court for display, the
signature of a prosecutor or court clerk is obtained on the E&P. If the substance used as
court evidence is returned to the Department with a damaged seal or container, it is re-
analyzed.
Prior to final destruction, controlled substances are photographed and placed in their
original containers for destruction. Destruction of marijuana is accomplished by burial at
an approved location.
Internal Controls re: Cash Seizures
Cash currency seized as evidence is handled according to the provisions of the Hawai'i
County Police Chiefs memorandum 98-50, "Evidence and Property Receipt and
Procedure," Section XV, "Currency Recovery and Storage."
When currency of any amount is recovered or seized, and Evidence and Property (E&P)
receipt is completed listing the currency by denomination. Unusual markings of
abnormalities (tears, handwritten notes) are listing in the E&P description column.
Currency is counted in the presence of another police officer and that officer's name is
listed on the E&P and on a supplementary report submitted as part of an investigation.
Currency may be photocopied to show serial numbers and submitted with the report when
required for criminal prosecution.
When currency and other evidence/property are recovered or seized together, the
currency is turned in under a separate E&P from the E&P for evidence/property.
Thereafter, both E&Ps bear the same case number and, to facilitate accountability, the item
numbers run consecutively in both reports. An example is provided as follows: "Drugs and
money are recovered from a suitcase. The suitcase and the drugs are recorded respectively
as Items #1 and #2 on one E&P; the money is recorded as Item #3 on the second E&P."
This procedure allows for the east of transfer from one E&P to another, should the need
arise.
When a forfeiture case is initiated, any transfer of evidence/ property from one E&P to
another lists the original item number on the new E&P. Both report numbers are cross-
referenced on the respective E&Ps and supplemental reports.
Security of recovered and seized currency begins with placement of cash in a plastic bag or
heat scaled packet which is then placed in a scaled manila envelope tagged with the report
.number, item number, badge numbers, and initials of both officers verifying the contents.
The original E&P remains with the evidence/ property. The envelope containing currency
is then placed into a designated District or Division secured currency evidence locker.
Only one key is maintained for the secured currency evidence locker, controlled by the
District/ Division Commander or, in his absence, an authorized designee. Commanders
may authorize only one designee for key control purposes.
56
The District/ Division Commander or designee is responsible for maintaining the chain of
custody of currency. That responsibility includes:
• removal of the currency from the secured currency evidence locker and verification of
the contents in the presence of another officer;
• ensuring that the currency is deposited into an authorized account on the first available
banking day;
• ensuring that the bank employee accepting the deposit signs the original E&P in the
chain of custody block to validate the E&P;
• attaching a copy of the bank deposit slip to the original E&P and sending it to the
Records Section for filing;
• ensuring that copies of the E&P and deposit slip are made and kept in the District file
and sent to the Finance Section.
In the event that a night deposit is made, due to large amounts of currency recovered or
long weekends requiring that currency be kept in a secured currency evidence locker for a
prolonged period of time, the deposit is made by the District/ Division Commander or
authorized designee. A copy of the deposit slip attached to the original E&P is submitted to
the Hilo Records Section. Copies of the deposit slip and E&P arc also sent to the Finance
Section.
FINDINGS re: STUDY OBJECTIVE #4
• The Hawaii County Police Department has established internal controls for the
interim security and final destruction of marijuana confiscated during field operations,
for controlled substances seized and held as evidence, and for cash seized in
conjunction with controlled substances investigations.
• We suggest that the procedures observed for the tally of marijuana plants confiscated
during field missions, including its final disposal, be incorporated into the Hawai'i
County Police Department's written "Procedures for Marijuana Eradication
Operations."
57
STUDY OBJECTIVE #5: Examine whether response and disposition procedures exist and
are being followed by the Police Department when handling public
complaints of aerial activities related to the subject grants.
Internal Control Procedure re: Public Comments and Complaints
The Police Department's "Procedures for Marijuana Eradication Operations" reads:
"During marijuana eradication conducted by the Hawai'i Police Department, the public
shall be provided a telephone number to call for all mission complaints and/or
information."
The Police Department's "Procedures for Marijuana Eradication Operations" manual also
requires all complaints/comments received during a marijuana eradication operation to be
documented on an approved form. Said form details the date and time the call was
received, the name, phone number, and general location of the caller, a brief summary of
the complaint/comment, a follow-up phone call with remarks, additional information, and
the name of the officer documenting the call. All complaints are then filed and maintained
for a period of at least three years.
During Fiscal Year 97.98 the Hawaii County Police Department documented forty-five
(4S) marijuana eradication related complaints/comments reported by the public. The
dates of the calls and associated CCFO missions were as follows:
TABLE 18: Public Calls/Complaints During FY97-98 Eradication Missions
Mission Date(s)
No. of Calls
Date of Call
Location
07/29.31197
2
07.29.97
Hawaiian Acres 6 Kapoho. Puna
1
07-31-97
Fern Acres, Puna
06105-07197
5
08-07.97
Made Twain b H.O.V.E., Ka'u
1
06-06.97
Alii Kai subdivision, Kona
08/11-14/97
0
09/03-05.117
6
0944.97
Mildii, Kona 8 H.O.V.E., Ka'u
2
0945.97
Honaunau, Kona
09109.11117
3
09-09-97
South Kulani, Orchidland 8 H.P.P., Puna
3
09.11-97
Hawaiian Acres, Puna
10/21-24197
0
1028.30/97
2
10-28-97
Puukala (Kalaoa), Kona
11112-1457
4
11.13.97
H.P.P., Puna; Ninde, North Hilo
3
11.14.97
Orchidland, North Oshiro Road b
Volcano, Puna
04/0649198
4
0447.98
Eden Roc, Glenwood d Fern Forest, Puna
04120.24198
4
04-21.98
South Point. Ka'u: Honomolino, Kona
05112.1558
1
M13.98
Pahoa, Puna
4
05.14.98
Ainaloa. H.P.P. 8 Leilani Estates, Puna
06/08.1058
0
DATA SOURCE: Hawaii County Police Department
58
The forty-five complaints consisted of 18 related to noise, 17 relating to low -altitude
flights, 8 related to the frequency of operations, 8 miscellaneous comments, and 2
unrelated calls. Miscellaneous comments included compliments about the mission's
success, information about (mown growers, and requests for additional information with
regard to operational procedures. Two calls were originally complaints about helicopter
noise; however, these complaints were discredited, as the description provided by the
caller did not match the operational helicopter. Many of those individuals (excluding
anonymous callers) were re -contacted by a police officer following a review of the
complaint. It appears that those re -contacted were satisfied with the efforts made by the
Police to explain the rationale for conducting operations in certain areas.
In a letter dated November 5, 1998 to Legislative Auditor Connie Kiriu, Police Chief
Wayne Carvalho provided the following information about public calls and complaints:
"A majority of the calls were helicopter noise complaints, however, many were
appeased and/or satisfied after they learned that the helicopter activity was the
result of a legitimate police operation. When contacting aircraft flying in the area
of the reported complaints, we were able to determine that they were not
violating height and/or operational procedures as set forth by our internal
'Procedures for Marijuana Eradication Operations.' Although law enforcement
agencies involved in any enforcement efforts are not governed by Federal
Aviation Agency regulations, these procedures were developed to establish self-
imposed guidelines in consideration of the public's concerns for helicopter
operations during marijuana eradication missions conducted by our Department.
On several occasions calls to commend and encourage the continuance of the
operations were also received from the public sector. We further received a
number of undocumented calls throughout the year relating to helicopter noise
and/or low flying aircraft that are not related to any of our missions. More
specifically, calls were received on dates that the Department did not have any
ongoing operations. When following up on these calls, we were able to
determine that many of the reports were, in fact, the related activities of other
independent governmental agencies such as the Fire Department, Department of
Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), etc., as well as private companies such as
HELCO and commercial tour helicopter flights."
In an effort to gain further corroboration, the Legislative Auditor's Office requested
the names and phone numbers of the telephone callers from the Police on June 29,
1999. The Police Department proposed to contact a maximum of 15 telephone
callers for authorization to release their information to the Auditor's Office. Fifteen
'Authorization to Release Information' forms were mailed by the Police Department
on August 12, 1999, using certified mail. No authorizations have been received by
the Auditor's Office as of this writing.
59
To further review the conduct of aerial surveillance and ground-based eradication
operations, two staff members of the Legislative Auditor's Office accompanied county
police officers and DEA personnel during a Counter -Cannabis Field Operation in the South
Hilo and Puna Districts on June 7, 1999. The Legislative Auditor's Site Visit Report is
found in Appendix E of this study.
FINDINGS Re: STUDY OBJECTIVE #S
• The Hawai'i County Police Department has developed response and disposition
procedures for handling public complaints related to aerial activities with the grants in
an internal manual called "Procedures for Marijuana Eradication Operations."
• To the extent verification could be made, the Police Department has followed their
written procedures.
60
STUDY OBJECTIVE #6:
Review of this study objective examined grant expenditures supporting marijuana
eradication in Hawai'i County since 1994, a multi-year analysis of eradication statistics, and
highlights of Police Department progress reports and annual reports from the Department
of the Attorney General during 1994.1998. Additionally, information is presented on
several independent assessments of law enforcement eradication efforts in Hawaii by pro -
marijuana organizations. Finally, data on estimated marijuana consumption, crop value,
State of Hawaii arrest statistics, and a 1998 Hawai'i Student Alcohol and Drug Use Study
are summarized to provide further reference for analysis of drug supply reduction efforts
in Hawaii.
Multi -Year Documentation of Grant Expenditures
Federal funding via Byrne Grants and DEA Letters of Agreement supporting the Hawaii
County Police Department's participation in the Statewide Marijuana Eradication Task
Force has been fairly consistent during the past rive years. The most notable funding
increase occurred in 1997, when $50,000 to assist with the costs of private helicopter
rental was added to LOA 97.39 for a total award of $245,000. However, combined
federal funding during the past three years has been less than funding during 1993.95,
indicating an overall downward trend.
1993-9499L4-9_5 1 5- 1996-97 1997-98
Bvrne Grants: $188,066 $166,875 $150,000 $113,625 5108,29+
DEA awards: $182-000 $189.633 SI86•I33 $190.000 $245-00
$370,066 $356,508 $336,133 $303,625 $3S3,294
Byrne Formula Grants awarded to the Hawai'i County Police Department have decreased
each successive year since 1993-94. The steady decrease in funds awarded to the Hawaii
County Police Department has resulted, in part, from the many Byrne Grant programs
throughout Hawai'i's criminal justice system competing annually for funding.
An analysis of the funding needs of drug control task forces is provided in a September
1997 Bureau of Justice Assistance report titled Multi -jurisdictional Tack Forces., Ten Years
oi'Rescareh and Evaluation. In preparing its report, BJA surveyed Formula Grant -funded
Task Forces across 29 States. Almost 650/6 of the funded task forces stated that they would
"shut down if Byrne funding were discontinued." Of the remaining task forces, many
reported that they "would continue to exist, but with diminished operational capacity."
BJA concluded that that the local use of Federal funding provided "the glue that keeps a
task force together and operating." BJA further noted that multi -jurisdictional task forces
G71
enabled Federal agencies "to more efficiently operate in certain settings such as rural
jurisdictions."
Evidence of satisfactory performance rendered by the Hawaii County Police Department
for Byrne Grants supporting marijuana eradication during 1994-96 was provided by the
Department of the Attorney General. Copies of letters to the Hawaii County Police
Department dated October 2, 1995, July 31, 1996 and January 7, 1999 from Lan Koga,
Administrator, Crime Prevention and Justice Assistance Division, expressly stated that all
conditions for Statewide Marijuana Eradication Task Force Projects 92 -DB -20, 93 -DB -12,
and 95 -DB -17 had been met and that the grants had been closed. According to DEA's
Honolulu Office, evidence of satisfactory performance by the Hawaii County Police
Department for past Letters of Agreement is furnished by successive issuance of new
annual funding agreements. .
Multi -Year Statistical Documentation of Grant -Funded Eradication Activity
A 14 -year summary (1984-1997) showing the numbers of marijuana plants eradicated by
county is provided in the table below. Reported figures from 1984 through 1996 were
compiled by the State Attorney General in a 1997 report titled An Analysis of* Crime in
Hawai i. Figures for 1997 were taken from the Attorney General's 1998 Annual Rcport
on the Byrnc Memorial formula Grant Program Activities. During 1984-1996, the
reported value of eradicated plants was calculated at one pound of consumable marijuana
per plant priced within a range of 36,00049,000 per pound, for which the Honolulu
Police Department used the mid-range figure of $7,500 per pound. In 1997, the Attorney
General's Office reported a more conservative estimated valuation of $1,000 per plant and
determined that the value of plants eradicated statewide was $708,075,000.
TABLE 19: Marijuana Eradication, 1984-1997 (Number of Plants by County)
DATA SOUCE: Depanraent of the Attorney General r Includes plants eradicated by OLMRI
Year
Total
Hawaii
County
Maui
Honolulu
Kauai
Value
18illionsl
1984
533.236
325.761
37,388
120,238
49,851
$1.066
1985
809,839
563,621
79.537
73,452
93.229
$1.620
1986
1,050,550
742,238
101,662
31,372
175.378
$2.102
1987
1,901,646
1,737,665
70.181
20,454
73.316
$3.804
88.89
1,855,212
1,747,430
31,875
3,996
71,909
$3.710
8990
1.322,106
1,008.100
51,241
10,008
13.200
$2.644
9091
1.196,360
646.861
$0,214
12,292
19.000
$4.187
9192
•777,695
218,196
14,032
60,000
15.151
$5.055
9293
•509,025
173.994
58.783
57,771
15,948
$3.308
93.94
'559.753
353,099
96,499
14,463
95,692
$6.710
94.95
'547,497
347,068
74,048
66.385
57,996
$4.110
1996
'661.652
158,138
39.364
23.662
57,848
$4.962
1997
1708.075
258,942
61.014
24,856
18.253
$708M
62
Figures reported in Table 19 above show a marked decrease in the numbers of plants
eradicated in Hawaii County between 1991.1997 in comparison to the period 1987.1990.
However, much of the eradication activity conducted by DLNR, separately reported since
1991.92, was undertaken on the Big Island. The overall decrease in eradication indicates
that widespread marijuana cultivation in Hawaii County has curtailed significantly since
the late 1980's.
However, several discrepancies were noted by the Legislative Auditor's Office regarding
annual totals of eradicated marijuana plants (shown above) reported by the Attorney
General. In 1984, the total of plants for all counties is 533,238, not 533,236. For 1988-
89, county figures add up tb 1,855,210, not 1,855,212. For 1989-90, county figures add
up to 1,082,549, not 1,322,106. For 1990.91, county figures add up to 728,367, not
1,196,360.
Totals reported for 1993-94 and 1994-9S are added accurately, but do not differentiate
subtotals for each county from DLNR eradication reporting. Conversely, statewide totals
for 1996 and 1997 suggest that the totals reported for each county represent missions led
by county police departments with the remainder represented by DLNR eradication.
The Auditor's Office notes that the Attorney General's 1996 total reported for Hawaii
County -158,138 plants—matches the figure reported by the Hawaii County Police
Department in its final progress report for Grant 95 -DB -17. The Attorney General's
1997 total for Hawaii County-258,942—covers the fiscal year (July/97-June/98).
However, the Attorney General's total of 258,942 does not match the July/97-June/98
mission totals-257,3S7—provided by the Hawaii County Police Department in its
memorandum dated November 5, 1998 to the Legislative Auditor (Reference: Table 101.
With respect to LOA 97-39, the Legislative Auditor's Office did not receive cumulative
annual reports from either the DEA or the Police Department. Lacking this information,
statewide DCE/SP statistics during 1994-97 were obtained from annual editions of the
Sourcebook oFCrimina//usdtc Statistim, shown in the table below.
TABLE 20: IKEISP Program Statistics, State of Hawai'1,1994-1997
63
Outdoor Operations
Indoor Operations
Cut6valad
Total
Number of
Vske of
PIM
Plants
Grows
P48M
Plants
Number
Weapons
AsNb
Lear
Ersft*W
Eradicated
So -zed
Eradiated
Eredcag0
or Arrests
Seized
Sozed
1991
14,463
640,076
6
331
$40,316
1,036
05
$M3,946
1646
24,091
462,669
/6
9,377
472,066
1,302
101
$406,364
1196
I3,664
652,923
10
642
553,363
774
62
$912,143
1997
34,675
599,661
13
2,610
$03,161
1,044
63
$1.290,632
DATA SOURCE.
Soumfboos of Cmmnal JusGee Stahsher /064. 1095, 1996, 1907 Edman
63
For comparison, the Legislative Auditor's Office prepared the following table showing
Hawai'i's rank in key DCE/SP reporting categories during the years 1994-1997 compared
to the other 49 states.
TABLE 21: DCE/SP Program Statistics, Hawaii vs. Cather 49 States
Hawaii consistently was first in the nation in the number of eradicated marijuana plots.
This finding correlates with police reports that marijuana growers increasingly disperse
plants in an effort to thwart detection. Hawaii consistently ranked among the top three
states in the amount of outdoor cultivated marijuana eradicated by DCE/SP. Moreover,
despite its small population relative to most states, Hawai'i regularly ranked among the top
sir states in the number of arrests and top twenty states in the number of weapons and
assets seized.
Multi -Year Narrative Documentation of Grant -Funded Activity
In addition to the statistical reporting of marijuana eradication presented above, required
progress reports prepared by the Hawaii County Police Department and annual reports
prepared by the Department of the Attorney General on the Byrne Memorial Formula
Grant Program document the grant -funded activities of the Statewide Marijuana
Eradication Task Force. Highlighted accomplishments and findings from these 1994.1997
reports include the following:
9 4 — Two Hawaii County Police Department's progress reports were submitted
for Grant 92 -DB -20 (1993.94). One report stated that 61,208 marijuana plants had
been eradicated, 34 cannabis -related cases developed, 63 persons arrested, and 8
weapons seized. The second report referenced the destruction of 27,585 marijuana
plants, development of 100 marijuana -related cases, 24 dangerous drug cases, and 21
Firearms cases, resulting in 74 arrests. Recovered evidence included 5,246 marijuana
plants, 46 pounds of processed marijuana, small amounts of narcotics, and 1 S
firearms. A total of 34 Counter Cannabis Field Operations were conducted in East
and West Flawai'i during the project period. The Police Department stated that
"multi -agency eradication missions and investigations are ongoing and the results have
64
Outdoor
Outdoor
Culbvaled
Indoor
Indoor
No. of
value of
National
PkNs
Plants
Grows
Plants
140. of
Weapons
AM%
Rank,no
Year
inted
Eraditatad
seized
Eradicated
Masts
Seized
Seized
Hawaii
1994
1
3
46
44
4
19
16
Hawaii
togs
1
3
30
a
3
9
19
Hawaii
1996
1
1
35
36
6
19
9
Hawaii
1997
1
3
36
19
6
17
9
DATA SOURCE:
Sourcebook df Crifl" Jusfice Stafirticr. 1994, 1995. 1996. 1997
Hawaii consistently was first in the nation in the number of eradicated marijuana plots.
This finding correlates with police reports that marijuana growers increasingly disperse
plants in an effort to thwart detection. Hawaii consistently ranked among the top three
states in the amount of outdoor cultivated marijuana eradicated by DCE/SP. Moreover,
despite its small population relative to most states, Hawai'i regularly ranked among the top
sir states in the number of arrests and top twenty states in the number of weapons and
assets seized.
Multi -Year Narrative Documentation of Grant -Funded Activity
In addition to the statistical reporting of marijuana eradication presented above, required
progress reports prepared by the Hawaii County Police Department and annual reports
prepared by the Department of the Attorney General on the Byrne Memorial Formula
Grant Program document the grant -funded activities of the Statewide Marijuana
Eradication Task Force. Highlighted accomplishments and findings from these 1994.1997
reports include the following:
9 4 — Two Hawaii County Police Department's progress reports were submitted
for Grant 92 -DB -20 (1993.94). One report stated that 61,208 marijuana plants had
been eradicated, 34 cannabis -related cases developed, 63 persons arrested, and 8
weapons seized. The second report referenced the destruction of 27,585 marijuana
plants, development of 100 marijuana -related cases, 24 dangerous drug cases, and 21
Firearms cases, resulting in 74 arrests. Recovered evidence included 5,246 marijuana
plants, 46 pounds of processed marijuana, small amounts of narcotics, and 1 S
firearms. A total of 34 Counter Cannabis Field Operations were conducted in East
and West Flawai'i during the project period. The Police Department stated that
"multi -agency eradication missions and investigations are ongoing and the results have
64
been outstanding." Sharing of resources and manpower reportedly alleviated
"burdening a single agency" and Task Force funds were credited as "the primary
reason behind the success we have had in the eradication and enforcement program."
The Attorney General's 1994 report noted "steady increases in marijuana confiscated
or destroyed by law enforcement agencies." Several indicators of the success of
marijuana eradication efforts were cited. DEA noted that Hawai'i ranked 47" in land
mass yet ranked 11` in eradication of cultivated marijuana plants. Street prices,
quoted at $2,000/Ib. in 1989, were now $5,00048,000/Ib., and higher still during
the non -peak growing season (October to May). A noticeable rise in imported
Mexican marijuana was noted. The Attorney General noted that Hawaii County
Police recovered three large parcels of containing 112 lbs. of processed marijuana
mailed from Arizona; apprehension and arrest of three persons ensued. The Attorney
General also observed that members of the Statewide Marijuana Eradication Task
Force had made presentations on its procedures and operations to DEA national
conferences during each of the previous three years.
19-95 — The Police Department's final progress report for Grant 93 -DB -12 (1994-9S)
stated that 19 Counter Cannabis Field Operations were supported by grant funds and
84,675 marijuana plants had been destroyed. Search warrant investigations resulted
in 63 arrests and recovery of five weapons. Several rappel training and re -certification
classes were held. Police personnel attended Western States Intelligence Network
(WSIN) and California Narcotics Officers Association (CNOA) conferences and
learned about "FLIR equipment and other new technology and investigative
approaches." DCE/SP Task Force meetings were held on a regular basis. Interagency
efforts, improved eradiation methods, and changes in criminal and civil laws were
cited as "paramount reasons for the marijuana shortfall in the State of Hawai'i."
The 1995 Attorney General's report stated that Task Force members conducted 36
joint missions throughout the State of Hawaii. Statewide, S23 arrests were made
from 708 cases. One real property seizure on the Big Island was valued at $100,000.
Estimated street prices were reported to be 56,00049,000/lb., up from $S,000-
$8,000/lb. the previous year. Again, this was cited as an indicator of the success of
marijuana eradication efforts, along with increased shipments of imported marijuana
from Mexico and Arizona "sold on the streets as Hawai'ian marijuana." The
coordination of inter -agency resources was credited with making up for a 25%
decrease in DLNR funding. The Task Force updated a standardized training and
equipment manual in 1995. Compilation of an "aircraft/ helicopter specifications
manual to maintain standard qualifications for flying eradication missions" was
reported underway.
IM—The Police Department's final progress report for Grant 9S -DB -17 (1996-97)
stated that 32 Counter Cannabis Field Operations were conducted during the grant
period. A total of 158,138 marijuana plants were eradicated and 55.6 lbs. of
65
processed marijuana were recovered. A total of 868 cannabis -related cases were
developed resulting in 167 cultivation and 562 cannabis -related arrests. Four indoor
grow operations were investigated and assets valued at $257,000 were seized for
forfeiture. Police personnel continued to attend WS1N and CNOA training
conferences. Along with the seizure of 140 cultivated plants at a Kona residence on
February 8, 1997, 18 "nail board" booby traps were located and seized. On February
21, 1997, 3.5 lbs. of processed marijuana and two weapons were recovered during a
search warrant of a Wainaku residence. Sir pounds of processed marijuana were
purchased from the same suspect two weeks later. A follow-up search warrant
resulted in the recovery of approximately 7 lbs. of processed marijuana. Other
significant investigations cited involved the recovery of plants and/or processed
marijuana at residences in Captain Cook, Black Sands Subdivision, upper Hilo„
Honomolino, Kealakehe, Hawaiian Acres, and Kalopa. Forfeiture proceedings were
reported pending on five properties
The 1996 Attorney General's report stated that 25 coordinated missions were
conducted during the reporting period, including one on Guam and one on Palau for
the DEA. Task Force activities accounted for 791 arrests, asset forfeitures of
$230,944, and 59 firearms. Reported street prices, $6,000-$9,000/Ib., remained the
same as the previous year. The decrease in the number of plants eradicated was
attributed to higher temperatures, lower rainfall, and the prevalence of small patches
in remote areas. Seizures of imported marijuana—typically I -S pound parcels—
shipped via private carriers from Arizona, Las Vegas, San Jose and Los Angeles, were
again cited as evidence of the success of eradication efforts. Task Force personnel
received ongoing training provided by USARPAC in combat life-saving and
USARPAC and HING on the use of infrared, thermal imaging, and GIS equipment to
locate both indoor and outdoor grows.
1997-98 — A comprehensive review of Police Department reports for Grant 96 -DB -
17 (1997-98) is presented in the first section of Chapter 4.
In 1997, the Attorney General reported that 60 eradication missions were conducted
statewide, resulting in the eradication of 661,652 marijuana plants, and 1,606 arrests.
Each county police department led missions in its own county, supported by other
Task Force agencies. DLNR eradicated marijuana from state lands, including native
forests, watersheds, and environmentally sensitive areas. Total project funding was
reported to be $384,710. The Attorney General's report stated that "Hawai'i remains
a major source state for marijuana." Experimentation with hybrids with a three-month
grow cycle was noted. Reported street prices continued to range from $6,000-
$9,000 per pound. Six Task Force meetings facilitated by DEA were held, rotated
among the four counties. The summary noted that "Hawai'i County continues to face
opposition to its marijuana eradication program." The report stated that "acceptance
of federal funding for marijuana eradication has generated heated debate arising from
county members representing constituents living in the more rural areas." The report
66
added that "anonymous complaints about the effects of herbicidal spraying have been
made, even though eradication was accomplished manually."
In 1998, the Attorney General reported that a total of 75 Task Force missions had
been conducted, including 40 on the Big Island led by the Hawaii County Police
Department. Statewide, a total of 1,143 arrests were made; seizures included 1
vehicle, 52 weapons, and $29,947 in cash. The report stated that "in March 1998,
Hawai'i was recognized as being second in the nation, after Tennessee, in the amount
of marijuana eradicated." Total project funding was reported to be $382,044. A
movement toward "indoor grow operations that use grow lights, drip irrigation
systems, and other cultivation paraphernalia" was reported. The practice of bartering
marijuana for drugs including crystal methamphetamine and cocaine was also
observed. Street prices were reported to range from $6,000.$9,000, as in earlier
reporting years. However, for the first time, the Attorney General provided a
"conservative estimate" of crop value and determined that based upon the valuation of
$1,000 per plant, the value of plants eradicated between July 1997 and June 1998
(708,075) was $708,075,000.
Independent Assessments of Marijuana Eradication
Two recent surveys by pro marijuana advocates corroborate the effectiveness of ongoing
eradication efforts in the State of Hawaii.
A recent article titled "The Ten Safest States to Grow" published in High Times magazine
(June, 1999, Vol. 286) excluded Hawaii, despite its high incidence of cultivation activity,
from a list of "safe states to grow." Author Jon Gettman based his list of "safe cultivation
states" on five criteria: (a) total arrest rate for marijuana offenses in 1996; (b) arrest rate
for marijuana sales/ distribution offenses in 1996; (c) average number of plants seized in
indoor grow rooms in 1997; (d) an index derived from penalties for marijuana sales
offenses based on 1990 laws; and (e) estimated marijuana production in 1997. The ten
safest states for marijuana cultivation, according to High Times, were: (1) Iowa; (2)
Delaware; (3) Vermont; (4) New Hampshire; (5) North Dakota; (6) Indiana; (7) Ohio; (8)
Massachusetts; (9) West Virginia; and (10) Nebraska.
In 1998, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) ranked
Hawai'i number one in the nation in eradication of cultivated marijuana. Hawaii also
ranked first in the nation in the number of marijuana plots ("outdoor sites closed")
eradicated. NORML based its "1997 U.S. Marijuana Eradication and Production Profile"
on the U.S. Census, data reported in High Timcs, and Drug Enforcement Administration
statistics.
Nationwide, NORML determined that 32% of U.S.-grown marijuana was eradicated by
law enforcement. However, NORML stated that 60% of Hawai'i-grown marijuana had
been eradicated in 1997. Hawai'i's share of the nationwide marijuana market, according to
67
NORML, was 4.93% and Hawai'i's market production, estimated at 250,900 lbs., trailed
California (#1), Tennessee (#2), and Florida (#3). NORML's "Havvai'i State Profile" is
shown in the table below.
TABLE 22: NORML Profile - State of Hawaii, 1997
Hawaii
U.S. Rank
1995 Population/1..........................................
1,179,000 ..................
40
U.S. Population Share ....................................
0.45% ........................
40
Marijuana Market Share ..................................
4.93% ........................
4
Estimated 1997 Eradication ..............................
60% ...........................
1
Low Retail Estimate of Harvest .........................
$1,240,000,000 ............
4
High Retail Value of Harvest .............................
$1,990.000,000 .............
4
Low Farm Value Estimate of Harvest .................
$747,000,000 ............
4
High Farm Value Estimate of Harvest .................
$1,190,000,000 .............
4
Ounce Price (Regional Retail Index)2 ...............
$310 ...........................
2
Estimated Production Weight (lb.) .....................
250,900 .......................
5
Outdoor Sites Closed/3 ...................................
34,675 ........................
1
Greenhouses Closed/3....................................
13 ..............................
36
Total Plants Eradicated/3.................................
602,161 .......................
3
KEY: 1. U.S. Census 2. High Times data 3. Drug Enforcement Administration
DATA SOURCE: National Organisation for the Reform of Maq,,em Laws
Finally, an article titled "The Hawaiian Marijuana War" in the October, 1996 issue of High
Times declared that "a costly federal -led crackdown ... has slashed output dramatically
over the past 10 years." High Times editor Bill Weinberg concluded that "Operations
Green Harvest and Wipeout, which peaked in the mid -80'3, have succeeded in putting any
sizeable guerilla farms out of operation, driving up prices—and provoking resistance from
a few brave citizens with the guts to speak out in the paranoid atmosphere of Island
machine politics." The article profiled Big Island "pakalolo crusaders" and their "three -
pronged strategy ... to legitimize cultivation and use of the plant on sacramental, medicinal
and industrial grounds." A copy of the article is provided in Appendix F of this study.
Estimations of Crop Value
In addition to documented crop destruction, estimated crop value has also been used as an
indicator of marijuana eradication and drug supply reduction efforts.
In 1998, the Attorney General's report on Byrne Formula Grant activities notably reduced
the estimated value of Hawaii -grown marijuana to $1,000 per plant. In previous years,
estimated plant value ranged from 56,000.9,000, with a mid-range figure of S7,S00 based
on Honolulu Police Department estimates.
The most recent valuation by the Attorney General (5708 million in 1997) is likely a far
more realistic assessment than the previously inflated values for statewide totals of
eradicated plants --86.7 billion in 1993.94 and S4.9 billion as recently as 1996.
FT
Prior year assessments were based on the premise that each confiscated marijuana plant
could potentially produce one pound of high-value buds capable of garnering maximum
reported street prices. This formula did not account for the lesser value of male plants,
incidence of stunted plant growth, unrealized bud production, insect damage, losses to
poachers, or other crop loss. Finally, prior year valuations, even after discounting mark-up
by end -market mainland distributors, were not confirmed by documented evidence of
marijuana -related income ranging in the billions of dollars felt in Hawai'i's economy.
Additional federal survey data strongly suggests that assessments of marijuana retail value
prior to 1998 were grossly inflated. A 1997 report prepared for the Office of National
Drug Control Policy titled • What America's Users Spend on Illegal Drugs, 1988 -1995 -
(Rhodes et al.) estimated the amount and retail sales value of a number of illegal drugs
consumed by Americans. Total dollar expenditures by Americans on illegal drugs in 1995
was estimated to be $57 billion: 838 billion on cocaine; 310 billion on heroin; $7 billion on
marijuana; and $3 billion on other illegal drugs and legal drugs used illicitly. Spending
trends from 1988.1995 are shown in the table below.
TABLE 23: TOTAL U.S. EXPENDITURES ON ILLICIT DRUGS, 1988.1995 ($ In billions)
Employing data from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA), the
authors determined that (1) about 9 million Americans used marijuana in 1995; (2) average
marijuana users consumed 18.7 joints a month; (3) average marijuana retail price was $269
per ounce; (4) users spent an average of 868 monthly or $815 annually on marijuana; and
(S) based upon 8.6 million monthly users, total national consumption was estimated at V
billion. The authors acknowledged that "these estimates are probably low" and suggested
that it would "be reasonable to inflate marijuana estimates by about one-third" to account
for likely underreporting of socially disapproved and illegal behaviors.
The authors stated that "we cannot develop a plausible supply based estimate of the retail
value of the marijuana market in the United States." They maintained that the amount of
marijuana cultivated for personal use was impossible to estimate, along with total foreign
supply of cannabis to the domestic American market. However, their estimation of a $7
billion national market was in marked conflict with the purported values of eradicated
Hawai'i-grown marijuana -ranging as high as $6.7 billion in 1993.94 (see Table 19) -
reported by the Department of the Attorney General prior to 1997.
69
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Cocaine
$61.2
556.7
$51.5
$45.9
$41.7
$40.3
$37.4
538.0
Heroin
$17.7
516.8
$14.3
$11.9
$10.2
$9.8
59.3
$9.6
Maryuans
59.1
$10.9
511.0
510.7
$11.5
$8.8
$8.2
$7.0
Other
53.3
$2.8
52.2
$2.3
52.0
$1.5
52.6
52.7
DATA SOURCE:
Office of National Dnp Control Policy, September 1997
Employing data from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA), the
authors determined that (1) about 9 million Americans used marijuana in 1995; (2) average
marijuana users consumed 18.7 joints a month; (3) average marijuana retail price was $269
per ounce; (4) users spent an average of 868 monthly or $815 annually on marijuana; and
(S) based upon 8.6 million monthly users, total national consumption was estimated at V
billion. The authors acknowledged that "these estimates are probably low" and suggested
that it would "be reasonable to inflate marijuana estimates by about one-third" to account
for likely underreporting of socially disapproved and illegal behaviors.
The authors stated that "we cannot develop a plausible supply based estimate of the retail
value of the marijuana market in the United States." They maintained that the amount of
marijuana cultivated for personal use was impossible to estimate, along with total foreign
supply of cannabis to the domestic American market. However, their estimation of a $7
billion national market was in marked conflict with the purported values of eradicated
Hawai'i-grown marijuana -ranging as high as $6.7 billion in 1993.94 (see Table 19) -
reported by the Department of the Attorney General prior to 1997.
69
State of Hawaii Arrest Statistics
Arrest statistics compiled by the State of Hawai'i provide another indicator of the
prevalence and persistence of marijuana cultivation and consumption in Hawai'i County.
In a report titled "Drug Offense Arrests in Hawai'i, 1982-1996," the Attorney General
reported that Hawai'i County, excepting 1991 and 1996, "consistently placed highest in
the percentage of total arrests accounted for by drug offense arrests." Statistics from the
Attorney General's report relating to drug abuse arrests in Hawai'i County (1982-1996)
are shown in the table below.
TABLE 24: Drug Abuse Arrests — Hawai'i County, 1982.1996
ADULTS
Man./Sale:
Manufacture
Possession:
Total Drug
Opium or
or Sale:
Opium or
Possession:
Offense
Year
Cocaine
Maduans
Conine
MaNuana
Arrests
1996
116
69
94
162
144
1995
108
81
114
175
505
1994
115
65
85
121
390
1993
68
99
37
114
322
1992
76
84
53
152
373
1991
29
107
39
108
295
1990
54
94
32
165
351
1989
36
106
20
210
381
1988
27
144
/6
154
348
1987
35
153
34
228
459
1986
51
159
47
313
574
1985
46
104
26
243
420
1984
20
104
22
337
490
1983
20
86
16
310
441
1982
11
68
16
325
432
JUVENILES
1996
9
18
4
212
243
1995
7
21
4
283
316
1994
4
7
4
191
208
1993
1
13
1
165
185
1992
8
5
1
138
158
1991
4
6
7
122
144
1990
1
8
1
135
152
1989
4
5
2
129
140
1988
1
9
6
137
158
1987
1
3
2
184
191
1986
0
5
4
176
185
1985
3
3
4
195
211
1964
0
7
0
124
131
1983
0
3
0
60
83
1982
0
3
0
65
68
DATA SOURCE:
Unrb m Cnme Repons. Depanment of the Attorney Generst
Data presented in the Attorney General's report was extracted from the Uniform Crime
Reporting (UCR) Program for which the four county police departments submit monthly
reports of complaints, arrests, and values lost in various crimes. UCR counts an arrest
70
each time the police arrest a person. When an arrested person is charged with multiple
counts, only the most serious charge is recorded. Because drug offenses are classified
among less serious crimes and police have discretion as to the hierarchy of reporting of less
severe crimes, the figures presented in the table below do not fully reflect the actual counts
of individuals charged with drug offenses.
UCR arrest reporting for Hawai'i County broadly indicates that arrests for all drug-related
offenses in Hawaii County have increased during the period 1994-1998 in comparison to
the previous five-year period, 1989-1993. However, UCR statistics also show fewer
arrests of adults charged with 'manufacture /sale" of marijuana (398) and adults charged
with marijuana "possession" (724) during 1992-1996 than during the previous five-year
period, 1987-1991, when 604 adults were arrested for manufacture/sale and 86S adults
were arrested for marijuana possession. Overall, the increase in all drug offense arrests
from 1992-1996 is due not to marijuana -related offenses, but to higher arrests totals for
manufacture/sale and possession of opium, cocaine, synthetic narcotics and non-narcotic
drugs.
UCR arrest statistics for 1992.1996, combined with reported totals of eradicated
marijuana plants in Hawaii County during the same five-year period (1,291,241 plants—
see Table 19), broadly indicates a decrease in both marijuana -related offenses and
cultivation activity from the previous 1987-1991 period, when higher arrests totals were
recorded and eradiated plants totaled S,3S8,302. These trends suggest that there has
been a significant reduction in the incidence of marijuana cultivation and related offenses in
recent years, excepting a notable trend in higher arrest totals for juveniles in 1992-1996.
Trends In Marijuana Use/Consumption
Several surveys monitoring the use/consumption of marijuana and other illegal drugs
indicate that current drug use and treatment needs among Hawaii County school children
exceed both State of Hawai'i and national averages.
Nationally, youth marijuana use and perceived availability has been monitored annually by
the University of Michigan's longitudinal "Monitoring the Future" study for many years.
In Hawaii, data has been most recently compiled in the 1998 Hawaii Student Alcohol and
Drug Use Survcy, a project of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, Alcohol and Drug
Abuse Division, and the University of Hawaii Speech Department, Statewide, 25,406
students in the 6", 8", 10" and 12" grades participated in the 1998 Hawaii survey. On the
Big Island, Hawaii District survey participation included 1,105 sixth graders, 861 eighth
graders, 453 tenth graders, and 3S9 twelfth graders. The survey was administered in the
spring of 1998.
71
The 1995 Michigan survey
showed that marijuana con-
tinues to be the drug most
frequently used by young
people nationwide. Nearly
half (49.14'x) of all high
school seniors reported mari-
juana use at least once in their
lifetimes, up from 44.9% in
1996 and 41.7 in 1995. A
slight decline in current use
by 10'" graders was reported,
however, along with reduc-
tions in the rate of increase of
current use among S" and
12"graders.
TABLE 25: MTF Survey, 1975-1997
Marijuana: Trends in Perceived Availability,
Perceived Risk of Regular Use, and Prevalence of
Use In Past Thirty Days for Twelfth Graders
sox
.ox
75 77 79 at sa ae e7 ae 91 93 9e 97
ue%WVQKOW rantrrtaodera "uw
Rax a AveYOeyx eoi rrt a rwnnrapar ra..,u x w. a la
ecaur.e ^rwe
FA
3
La
U
Data Source: 1998 Monitoring the Future Study
In Hawaii, recent survey data indicates that marijuana use by students statewide is slightly
less than the national average. Whereas 49.1% of twelfth -grade students nationwide
reported marijuana use at least once in their lifetimes, Hawai'i high school seniors
reporting lifetime use was 47.7%.
However, in Hawaii County,
marijuana use by district school
students exceeded national trends,
.with 60% of 12" graders reporting
using marijuana at least once. A
comparison of reported lifetime
marijuana use by students nationwide
vs. Hawaii District students is shown
in Table 25.
Asked "hove difficult do you think it
would be for you to get marijuana
(hash, pakalolo, pot, weed) if you
wanted some," 73"0 of Hawai'i
District twelfth graders answered
"fairly easy."
TABLE 26: Lifetime Marijuana Use,
DATA SOURCES. Mondonng the Future study lilies) and
1998 Hawaii Student Aicohol and Drug Use Study
The Hawaii survey did not rate "availability of drugs" as the highest risk factor among
,youth, however. Instead, exposure to the drug use of peers, family members and the
community, as well as perceived substance use among peers, all ranked higher as risk
factors.
72
U.S. vs. MatvaN County
70.00%
60.00%
!'z
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
-1
0.00%
_AJV1-
e"Grade e"rasa iii G mia 1e Graa,
Legend:
❑ Nationwide ■ Hawaii County
DATA SOURCES. Mondonng the Future study lilies) and
1998 Hawaii Student Aicohol and Drug Use Study
The Hawaii survey did not rate "availability of drugs" as the highest risk factor among
,youth, however. Instead, exposure to the drug use of peers, family members and the
community, as well as perceived substance use among peers, all ranked higher as risk
factors.
72
Overall, the 1998 Hawaii Student Alcohol and Drug Use Study found that Neighbor Island
students were, on average, exposed to more risk factors for alcohol and drug abuse.
Moreover, students from Hawai'i County and Kauai County were exposed, on average, to
fewer protective factors. The authors reported that the study's "most alarming finding"
was the statewide increase in adolescent treatment need estimates for alcohol and/or other
drugs. The greatest needs were reported to be "in Hawaii County where 21% of the
students arc estimated to need treatment."
In conclusion, the 1998 Hawaii Study suggested that "effective prevention and treatment
programs require the combined efforts of communities, law enforcement, families, media,
and ongoing school-based substance abuse programs."
One recent example of a broad-based approach to drug control issues in Hawaii was the
October 24, 1997 Model Drug Law Conference hosted by the Department of the Attorney
General. The conference was organized in cooperation with the Governor's Committee
on Crime and the National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws. It brought together a
cross-section of law enforcement officials, including vice officers of the Hawaii County
Police Department, drug treatment professionals, and community agency representatives.
Participants examined needs in crime codes enforcement, treatment, drug-free families
and schools, and community mobilization.
In many respects, the array of issues and approaches presented at the 1997 Model Drug
Law Conference mirrored the multiple goals and objectives found in the National Drug
Control Strategy. Illicit drug supply reduction campaigns were seen a component of a
comprehensive strategy to reduce drug use and drug-related crime. Marijuana eradication
and other law enforcement drug interdiction campaigns were understood to be only one of
many indicators by which public safety and public health could be evaluated.
Excepts of Hawail District findings from the /998 Hasvai Student Alcohol and Drug Usc
Study are provided in Appendix G of this report.
A review of national drug use trends, ONDCP's Drury Policy /nlormation Clearinghouse
Fact Sheet, dated June 1999, is provided in Appendix H of this report.
FINDINGS Re: STUDY OBJECTIVE #6
• Federal grants to the Hawaii County Police Department from 1994 through 1998
have substantially aided law enforcement efforts to reduce and deter illicit marijuana
cultivation throughout the State of Hawaii. Moreover, the perseverance of
eradication efforts appears to have reduced export of Hawaii -grown marijuana to the
continental United States. These achievements arc acknowledged, however
grudgingly, by independent analysts.
73
• The organization and activities of the Statewide Marijuana Eradication Task Force have:
l) helped to develop a statewide cadre of trained, skilled law enforcement officers
experienced in cannabis eradication techniques and multi -jurisdictional resource
coordination;
2) successfully contained growing activity in Hawai'i County, particularly in
comparison to the period of 1986 through 1991;
3) markedly improved public safety in remote areas, public parks and trails,
particularly in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, where the vigilance of park
personnel and the threat of federal prosecution has lessened cultivation ventures;
4) periodically disrupted large and sophisticated outdoor and indoor growing
operations aimed at off -island market distribution; and
S) resulted in significant seizures of weapons, as well as other dangerous drugs—
ice, cocaine, crack—classified in HRS §712-1241 in conjunction with marijuana -
related investigations.
These activities and achievements are consistent with the federal objectives outlined in
Grant 96 -DB -13 and LOA 97-39, along with prior year federal awards to the Hawaii
County Police Department.
• Occasional discrepancies in the reporting of eradicated marijuana plants point to the
need for coordination and diligence by the Hawai'i County Police Department and the
Department of the Attorney General. Several of these discrepancies were noticed in
published reports found on the Internet and public libraries. We respect that the task
of reporting eradication activity is sometimes challenging. Grant -funded project
periods oftentimes do not coincide with state fiscal years or calendar years. Search
warrant investigations subsequent to Counter Cannabis Field Operations add new
counts of eradicated plants to previously reported totals. A clerical error may easily be
passed on to the next level of agency reporting. We believe that these are
administrative errors and in no way reflect upon the integrity of confiscation and
disposal performed by county lave enforcement personnel. However, the seizure of
illicit drugs valued in the millions or even billions of dollars calls for the utmost care in
official reporting. Accordingly, we encourage the member agencies of the Statewide
Marijuana Eradication Task Force to address the accuracy, thoroughness, and
consistency of reports data.
• The Hawaii County Police Department has historically fulfilled its obligations
respective to grant requirements as determined by the State Attorney General and the
Drug Enforcement Administration. The State Attorney General has confirmed in
writing that the Hawaii County Police Department has satisfactorily "met the terms
and conditions" of the grant contracts subject to this review by the Legislative
Auditor's Office. Therefore, the performance of the Hawaii County Police Depart-
ment merits the confidence of the Hawaii County Council respective to future
acceptance of federal grant funds.
74
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
The Hawaii County Council, in accepting U.S. Department of Justice federal grants from
the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, has asked the
Legislative Auditor to determine if the Hawai'i County Police Department has effectively
met the stated goals, objectives and obligations of the grants, spent grant monies as
authorized by the grantor agencies, and observed internal controls for the disposition of
confiscated marijuana, cash seizures, and public complaints. To each of these inquiries,
we answer in the affirmative.
However, we note that the federal statutes and guidelines directing multi -jurisdictional
drug control task forces have clearly designated the accountable agencies and jurisdictions
of government responsible for fiscal and program review of these law enforcement grants.
They are the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and the State of Hawaii Department
of the Attorney General, acting as the designated "pass through" state administrative agency
for Byrne Memorial grants awarded by the Bureau of justice Assistance.
While the Hawai'i County Legislative Auditor has endeavored to fulfill the study objectives
outlined in Council Resolution No. 338-98, we admit that our findings lack statutory
authority and any recommendations are purely advisory. Essentially, this study has been
performed outside the scope of the County's jurisdiction.
For many years, the Hawaii County Council has provided a forum for discussion and
debate about ongoing law enforcement efforts to eradicate and deter illegal marijuana
cultivation in Hawai'i County. However, the Hawai'i County Council has neither an
assigned statutory role in program formulation nor oversight of multi -jurisdictional lav
enforcement tack forces. These functions are carried out by federal and state law
enforcement agencies.
Therefore, with respect to the operational activities of the Statewide Marijuana Eradication
Task Force, we conclude that the proper forum for public discussion is the Department of
the Attorney General and its advisory committee on crime during the annual development
process of Byrne Grant funding proposals. With respect to federal and state lays
governing scheduled drugs and drug-related offenses, we conclude the suitable forums for
citizens' concerns are the United States Congress and the Hawai'i State Legislature.
75
BIBLIOGRAPHY
National Drug Control Strategy —1999, Office of National Drug Control Policy,
Washington, D.C. (138 pp.)
Responding to Drug use and Violence: A Directory and Resource Guide of Public- and
Private-SoetorDrug Control Grants, Office of National Drug Control Policy,
May 1998 (126 pp.)
Focus on What Works: Law Enforcement Task Force Evaluation Projects. Results and
Findings in the States, Bureau of justice Assistance, April 1992
Multijurisdicriona/Drug Contra/ Task Forces: A Five Year Re view 1988-1991
(A Report of the State Reporting and Evaluation Program), Bureau of justice
Assistance, October 1993
Multilurisdictiona/ Task Forces. Ten Years ofRcscarch and Evaluation (A Rcport to the
Attorrncy General), Bureau of justice Assistance, September 1997
Guidance and Appliot/on Kit for the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local La w
Enforcement Assistance Formula Grant Program, Bureau of justice Assistance,
(HTML Version)
Financial Guide for the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Loo/ Law Enforcement
Assistance Formula Grant Program, Bureau of justice Assistance (HTML Version)
1994 Annual Rcport on the Edward Byrne Memorial Statc and Law Enforcement
Assistance Formula Grant Program Activities, Department of Attorney General,
Resource Coordination Division, September 1994 (S8 pp.)
1995 Annual Report on the Edward Byrne Memorial State and La w Enforcement
Assistance Formula Grant Program Activities, Department of Attorney General,
Resource Coordination Division, October 1995 (S4 pp.)
1996 Annual Report on the Edward Byrne Memorial State and La w Enforcement
Assistance Formula Grant Program Activities, Department of Attorney General,
Crime Prevention and justice Assistance Division, November 1996 (46 pp.)
1997 Annual Report on the Edward Byrnc Memorial State and La vv Enforcement
Assistance Formula Grant Program Activities, Department of Attorney General,
Crime Prevention and justice Assistance Division, December 1997 (39 pp.)
1998 Annual Report on the Edward Syroc Memorial State and La w Enforcement
Assistance Formula Grant Program Activities, Department of Attorney General,
Crime Prevention and justice Assistance Division, (S7 pp.)
1998 Hawaii Studcnt Alcohol and Drug Use Study, Executive Summary, Mingle
Miller, University of Hawaii, 1999 (27 pp.) and Hawaii District School Rcsults,
1999 (46 Pp.)
What America's Users Spend on //Agal Drurs, William Rhodes, Ph. D. ct al.,
prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, September 1997 (102 pp.)
1998 Marijuana Crop Rcport: An Evaluation of Marijuana Production, Valuc, and
Eradication E/Torts in the Unitcd Statcs, Gettman & Armentano, National
Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (HTML Version)
76
The Drug Enforcement Administration's Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression
Program Audit Rcport 9S-10, Office of the inspector General, Washington, D.C.,
April, 1995 (17 pp.)
The Supply ofUlcgal Drugs to the Unitcd Statcs, 1996 Report of the National Narcotics
Intelligence Consumers Committee, Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S.
Department of Justice (HTML Version)
The Tcn SafcstStates to Grow, Jon Gettman, High Times, June 1999, Volume 286
(HTML Version)
National Conference on Marijuana: Prevention, Treatment and Research (Summary
Proceedings), National Institute on Drug Abuse, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Washington, D.C., 1998 (80 pp.)
Federal Drug Data Sources, Office of National Drug Control Strategy,
Washington, D.C., November, 1998 (6 pp.)
State of Vermont Auditor's Report on Domestic Cannabis Eradication,
1998 (9 pp., HTML Version)
Bric/ing Book(s): DEA History (3 pp.); Marijuana Eradication (I p.); State & Local
Task Forces (I p.), Drug Enforcement Administration (HTML Version)
A Not Quite Critical Review of the Marijuana Eradication Program in Ha waii
County 1980-1997, Glenn Robinette, Hawaii Island Public Interest Research
Group (40 pp.)
Modcl Drug Law Conicrence-A Symposium on Crime in Hawaii: A Report to the
19" State Legislature, Department of the Attorney General, State of
Hawaii — December, 1997 (160 pp.)
An Analysis ofCrimc in Hawaii, Department of the Attorney General, 1998 (91 pp.)
Data Brief. Drug Olicnsc Arrests in Hawaii, 1982-1996, Department of the Attorney
General, Crime Prevention and Justice Assistance Division, October 1997 (16 pp.)
Restoring justice in Hawaii. A Survcy olCriminal justiec Programs, Department of
The Attorney General, Crime Prevention and Justice Assistance Division,
June 1998 (20 pp.)
Drug War Politics: The Price ofDcnial, Bertram et al., University of California Press,
1996 (347 pp.)
Sourcebook of Criminal justice Statistics, 1994-1997 Editions, U.S. Department
Of Justice
OMB Circular No. A-133, Audits of Statcs, Local Governments, and Non -Prost
Organizations, Revised June 24, 1997
77
Stratecric Goals and
objectives of did
1999 Nation, -d
Dru Control Stratcgy 9
r,,•;1. A-1
Strategic Goals and Objectives
.......... -
Strategic Goals and Objectives of the
Goal 1: Educate and enable America's youth to reject illegal drugs as
well as alcohol and tobacco,
Objective l: Educate parents and other care givers, teachers, coaches, clergy, health professionals, and
business and community leaders to help youth reject illegal drugs and underage alcohol and
tobacco use.
Objective 2: Pursue a vigorous advertising and public communications program dealing with the dangers of
illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco use by youth.
Objective 3: Promote zero tolerance policies for youth regarding the use of illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco
within the family, school, workplace, and community.
Objective 4: Provide students in grades K- 12 with alcohol, tobacco, and drug prevention programs and poli-
cies that are research based.
Objective 5: Support parents and adult mentors in encouraging youth to engage in positive, healthy lifestyles
and modeling behavior to be emulated by young people.
Objective 6: Encourage and assist the development of community coalitions and programs in preventing
drug abuse and underage alcohol and tobacco use.
Objective 7: Create partnerships with the media, entertainment industry, and professional sports organiza-
tions to avoid the glamorization, condoning, or normalization of illegal drugs and the use of
alcohol and tobacco by youth.
Objective 8: Develop and implement a set of research -based principles upon which prevention programming
can be based.
Objective 9: Support and highlight research, including the development of scientific information, to inform
drug, alcohol, and tobacco prevention programs targeting young Americans.
Goal 2: Increase the safety of America's citizens by substantially
reducing drug-related crime and violence.
Objective I • Strengthen law enforcement — including federal, state, and local drug task forces — to combat
drug-related violence, disrupt criminal organizations, and arrest and prosecute the leaders of
illegal drug syndicates.
Objective 2: Improve the ability of High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTAs) to counter drug trafficking.
Objective 3: Help law enforcement to disrupt money laundering and seize and forfeit criminal assets.
Objective 4: Break the cycle of drug abuse and crime.
Objective 5: Support and highlight research, including the development of scientific information and data,
to inform law enforcement, prosecution, incarceration, and treatment of offenders involved
with illegal drugs.
THE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY, 1999 Appendix A_2
Strateeit Goals and Obiectives
1999 National Drug Control Strategy
Goal 3: Reduce health and social costs to the public of illegal drug use.
Objective 1: Support and promote effective, efficient, and accessible drug treatment, ensuring the development of a
system that is responsive to emerging trends in drug abuse.
Objective 2: Reduce drug-related health problems, with an emphasis on infectious diseases.
Objective 3: Promote national adoption of drug-free workplace programs that emphasize a comprehensive program
that includes: drug testing, education, prevention, and intervention.
Objective 4: Support and promote the education, training, and credentialing of professionals who work with
substance abusers.
Objective 5: Support research into the development of medications and related protocols to prevent or reduce drug
dependence and abuse.
Objective 6: Support and highlight research and technology, including the acquisition and analysis of scientific data,
to reduce the hath and social costs of illegal drug use.
Objective 7: Support and disseminate scientific research and data on the consequences of legalizing drugs.
Goal 4: Shield America's air, land, and sea frontiers from the drug threat.
Objective l: Conduct Flexible operations to detect, disrupt, deter, and seize illegal drugs in transit to the United
States and at U.S. borders.
Objective 2: Improve the coordination and effectiveness of U.S. drug law enforcement programs with particular
emphasis on the Southwest Border, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Objective 3: Improve bilateral and regional cooperation with Mexico as well as other cocaine and heroin transit zone
countries in order to reduce the Flow of illegal drugs into the United States.
Objective 4: Support and highlight research and technology— including the development of scientific information and
data — to detect, disrupt, deter, and seize illegal drugs in transit to the United States and at U.S. borders.
Goal 5: Break foreign and domestic drug sources of supply.
Objective 1: Produce a net reduction in the worldwide cultivation of coca, opium, and marijuana and in the production
of other illegal drugs, especially methamphetamine.
Objective 2: Disrupt and dismantle major international drug trafficking organizations and arrest, prosecute, and
incarcerate their leaders.
Objective 3: Support and complement source country drug control efforts and strengthen source country political
will and drug control capabilities.
Objective 4: Develop and support bilateral, regional, and multilateral initiatives and mobilize international
organizational efforts against all aspects of illegal drug production, trafficking, and abuse.
Objective 5: Promote international policies and laws that deter money laundering and facilitate anti -money
laundering investigations as well as seizure and forfeiture of associated assets.
Objective 6: Support and highlight research and technology, including the development of scientific data, to reduce
the worldwide supply of illegal drugs.
Appendix A-3 THE NATIONAL ORUG CONTROL STRATEGY, 1999
Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse
0 Kauai
onolulu
Kelawao
® y.
Will
APPENDIX B
This State Profile was prepared by the ONDCP Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse,
The Clearinghouse is funded by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy
and is a component of the National Criminal Justice Reference Service. For further
information concerning the contents of this profile or other drug policy issues contact:
The Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
1-800-666-3332
http://www.whitehousedruizr)olicy.pov
ondcpna.ncj rs.org
Appendix B-1
Hawaii Profile
The following is a profile of The State of Hawaii and contains information on
demographics, political figures, funding and programs, crime statistics, drug use and
trafficking trends.
Demographics
• Population: 1,193,001 (1998 estimate)
• Gender: 50.9% Male, 49.1% Female
• Age: 25.5% under 18, 13.2% 65 or older
• Race: 61.8% Asian or Pacific Islander, 33.4%White, 2.6% Black, .5% American
Indian or Aleut
• Poverty Level: 9.9% of Hawaii's population is estimated to be in poverty.
Politics2
• Governor: Benjamin J. Cayetano
• Lt. Governor: Mazie Hirono
• Attorney General: Margery Bronster
• Senate: Daniel Akaka (D), Daniel Inouye (D)
• House: Neil Abercrombie (D), Patsy Mink (D)
Funding
• The Office of National Drug Control Policy awarded the County of Kauai and the
Office of the Mayor in Kauai, Hl $100,000 under the FY 1998 Drug -Free
Communities Support Programa
of Hawaii Federal Funding FY 1998-
rro ram
I Source
1998 Amount
1999 Amount
Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment
HHS
$6,382,000
$6,810,000
Safe and Drug -Free Schools
DOE
$2,592,000
$2,151,000
Edward Byrne Memorial Grant
BJA
$3,173,000
$3,164,000
Residential Substance Abuse Treatment
CPO
$365,000
$370,000
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention awarded the State of
Hawaii $716,000 under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Program
during 1998. Also in 1998 OJJDP awarded Hawaii $1,900,300 under Juvenile
Accountability Incentive Block Grant °
The State of Hawaii received $3,164,000 in FY 1999 from BJA under the Edward
Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Formula Grant, which
is down from the FY 1998 figure of $3,173,000. In FY 1997 Hawaii received
$2,833,200 from BJA's Byrne program.5
�a
Hawaii
Area
Purpose 2: Task Forces
$315,000
Purpose 4: Crime Prevention
$50,000
Purpose 5: Property Crimes
$82,474
Purpose 9: Financial Investigations
$185,000
Purpose 11: Corrections Programs
$237,889
Purpose 13: Treatment
$57,000
Purpose 16: Information Systems
$300,000
Purpose 18: Domestics Violence
$489,250
Purpose 20: Detention Alternatives
$354,400
Total Grant Award
$2,833,200
Note: There are 26 purpose areas, only those
that have funds
allocated are shown above
Source: BJA, Annual Report, FY 1997, September 1998.
Programs'
• The State of Hawaii operates a needle exchange program that was started in 1993.
The number of needles exchanged has dropped from 173,671 in 1995 to 133,958 in
1996.
• Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF). The members of the
OCDETF are the Honolulu Police Department, the DEA, and FBI. OCDETF is
involved in covert, long-term organized crime drug investigations utilizing
nationwide contacts that may include the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Customs,
Immigration and Naturalization Services and other state and local law enforcement
agencies depending on the depth and breadth of the organization.
• Statewide Narcotics Task Force. The Statewide Narcotics Task Force was established
in June 1988 to coordinate resources in order to disrupt the importation and
distribution of illegal substances, particularly at the airports. Participating agencies
include the four county police departments, the four county prosecuting attorneys, the
DEA, the FBI, the U.S. Postal Service, the U.S. Attorney, INS, and U.S. Customs.
Training resources for all participating agencies are coordinated by the Hawaii Police
Department's Narcotics/Vice Airport Detail (NVAD). Communications and
intelligence information are shared to expedite investigations.
Community Coalition for Neighborhood Safety (CCFNS). CCFNS, a coalition of
local citizen organizations, works to combat crime and create safe communities. The
coalition provides education and coordinates public service activities for
neighborhood safety. CCFNS often works cooperatively with the Honolulu Police
Department.
In 1995, the Byrne Grant assisted the Judiciary in starting a Hawaii Drug Court
program for felons in the First Circuit. The program is designed to simultaneously
address addiction and criminality by augmenting treatment resources. Overall, the
Hawaii Drug Court outpatient project has shown promising results. As of October
1997, 500 offenders were screened and 205 were accepted. The retention rate is
82% with positive urinalysis results between 34%. Currently, 60% of all participants
are enrolled in college, a GED program or employed. 41 participants have graduated
from Hawaii Drug Court with 4 relapsing. None of the graduates have committed a
new offense.
Cocaine and Crack
• Use/Availability
Indicators of cocaine use in Hawaii show that use is decreasing. Both Hawaiian's and
Caucasians in there 20's to late 30's are using cocaine. The primary method of use is
smoking and snorting. 7
Cocaine and crack treatment admissions decreased from 369 to 268 between the
second half of 1996 and the first half of 1997. Cocaine and crack admissions are
ranked fourth among all admissions.
Cocaine -related deaths in Honolulu have decreased from 18 deaths in the second half
of 1996 to 13 in the first half of 1997.
Trafficking
Mexican nationals are the primary dealers of cocaine and crack within Hawaii.
Price/Purity
Crack cocaine sells for $30-$50 for a rock in Hawaii. A 1/10 gram sells for $25-$35
and a gram goes for $100-$120. Larger amounts are sold for $26,000452,000 per
kilogram. The purity of cocaine varies from 90% for amounts over a pound to 20-
50% for gram purchases.8
Heroin
• Use/Availability
Heroin use in Hawaii is stable at low level. The primary users of heroin are older
males. The primary method of use is injection.9
Heroin treatment admissions declined from 166 during the second half of 1996 to 69
in the first half of 1997. Heroin made 3.4% of all treatment admissions.
Heroin deaths remained the stable at 22 for both the second of 1996 and the first half
of 1997. Black tar heroin is readily available in all areas of the State.
• Trafficking
Mexican Nationals are the primary sellers of heroin in Hawaii and all sell marijuana
and cocaine. The Mexican States of Sinaloa, Jalisco and Nayarit are the primary
sources of Mexican heroin in Hawaii. Trafficking organizations are attempting to
expand operations by attracting new customers. State agencies estimates that 90
percent of the heroin seized in Hawaii arrived though couriers or in parcels delivered
trough Honolulu International Airport.
• Price/Purity
Heroin sells at $50 for 1/4 a gram or $200-$500 per gram. Larger amounts go for
$ 100,000 ger kilogram. The purity of heroin in Hawaii ranges from 20 to 67% for
black tar.
Marijuana"
• Use/Availability
Marijuana use in Hawaii high and is used by both males and females and all ages.
Treatment admissions for marijuana declined slightly from 517 in the second half of
1996 to 485 in the first part of 1997.
GEI
Marijuana -related deaths fell from 13 mentions in the second half of 1996 to 9 in the
first part of 1997.
• Trafficking
Marijuana is sold by Mexican Nationals as well as local growers in Hawaii. The
Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources estimates that 10 to 20 percent of
marijuana cultivation occurs on sugar cane land, 70 to 80 percent in forest areas, and
10 percent in private land.
A Statewide Marijuana Eradication Taskforce was created in 1991 to coordinate all
marijuana eradication activities in Hawaii. Agencies involved in the Taskforce
include: Department of the Attorney General, Department of Land and Natural
Resources, Hawaii National Guard, Drug Enforcement Administration, and the U.S.
Army.
• Price/Purity
Marijuana sells for $1004200 for a quarter ounce in Hawaii. A joint sells for $5 and
a gram sells for $25. An ounce of high quality marijuana sells for $350-$700 and an
ounce of low quality marijuana sells for $250-$500. A pound of high quality
marijuana ranges from $6,000 to $9,000.
Methamphetamine 12
• Use/Availability
Methamphetamine is the drug of choice among the Hawaiian Islands.
Methamphetamine treatment admissions remained high at 573 in the last part of 1996
and at 556 in the first part of 1997. Methamphetamine made up 28.1%of all
treatment admissions in Hawaii second only to alcohol at 28.4%.
Methamphetamine -related deaths rose from 13 in the last part of 1996 to 20 in the
first half of 1997.
• Trafficking
California-based Mexican smuggling organizations use Hawaii cultural diversity to
facilitate trafficking and distribution within the islands.
• Price/Purity
The purity of methamphetamine in Hawaii is high at 90-100%. Methamphetamine
prices ranged from $50 to $100 for .01 gram and $80041,000 for a gram of high
quality 'blear". Clear is a higher quality more processed form of methamphetamine.
A pound of methamphetamine in Hawaii can range from $55,000 $250,000
depending on the quality.
Youth Drug Use 13
• In the spring of 1996, the State of Hawaii Department of Health, Alcohol and Drug
Abuse Division, and the University of Hawaii Speech Department collaborated in a
study designed to determine prevalence and trends in drug use; treatment needs, and
related factors for public and participating private school students statewide. The
survey was conducted among six, eighth, tenth, and twelfth graders in all the public
schools and a quarter of the private schools in Hawaii.
• Illicit Drug Use in the past 30 days increased for all grade levels, with 26.3% of
twelfth graders reporting the use of an illicit drug during the previous 30 days in 1996
compared to 19.7% in 1993. Nearly four times as many sixth graders and nearly twice
W.
as many eighth graders in 1996, compared to 1993, reported monthly use of at least
one illicit drug. Thirty day prevalence rates for marijuana use show the greatest
increase since 1993, increasing more than five percentage points at all grade levels
(except sixth grade) in 1996.
From 1993 to 1996, more than a ten percentage point increase in monthly prevalence
reports of alcohol use occurred at all grade levels. The monthly prevalence of alcohol
use reported in 1996 is five times greater for sixth graders (increasing from 2.5% to
14.4%). Thirty -day use among eighth graders has doubled, increasing from 15.2% to
30.2% between 1993 and 1996. The monthly prevalence of cigarette use has
increased at all grade levels among Hawaii students with the largest increases
occurring in the sixth and eighth grades. Thirty -day prevalence rates of cigarette use
for sixth graders went from 2.1% to 10.8% between 1993 and 1996. For eighth
graders, levels of cigarette use during the last 30 days increased from 14.3% in 1993
to 25.5% in 1996.
Adult Treatment Needs
During 1994 to 1996, the Hawaii Department of Health, Alcohol and Drug Abuse
Division (ADAD) conducted a family of substance abuse treatment needs assessment
studies, which were funded by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. The core
of the family of studies was an adult household telephone study. This survey of 5,800
Hawaii residents provided information on the need for substance abuse treatment
services for adults at the State and county levels.
NEED FOR TREATMENT: ESTIMATES OF ADULT DEPENDENCE AND ABUSE
PRIVATE)
RIVATE}
OUNTY
opulation
8 Years and
onolulu
aui
auai
awaii
otal
ver)
I
63,473
2,754
0,740
8,036
885,002
reatment Need:
o.
/o
o.
/o
o.
/o
o.
/o
o.
%
Treatment
or Alcohol Only
2,131
.35
5,818
7.03
2,750
6.75
6,294
6.42
6,994
6.44
Needing Treatment
or Drugs Only
6,635
1.00
1,498
1.81
619
1.52
1,206
1.23
9,735
1.10
Needing Treatment
or Both Alcohol
8,426
1.27
1,804
2.18
517
1.27
1,598
1.63
12,390
1.40
d Drugs
Total Needing
Treatment for
Alcohol and/or
7,192
r
8.62
9,120
11.02
,886
.54
19,098
.28
9,119
r
8.94
Drugs
I
I
I
Based on 1990 U.S. Census Data
Source: "Hawaii 1995 Adult Household Survey of Substance Use and Treatment Needs,'
Department of Health Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division.
W.
Trafficking
• Modes of transportation used to smuggle drugs into Hawaii include: (1) commercial
and private air transportation (passengers, baggage, freight), (2) commercial and
private marine transportation (passengers, freight, containers), and (3) federal and
private postal services.
• There are nine commercial, seven general aviation, and six military airports in the
State. There are also 13 semi -private heliports. The six commercial airports reporting
the most aircraft operations include the Honolulu International Airport, both the Hilo
and Kona International Airports on Hawaii, Kahului Airport on Maui, Lihue Airport
on Kauai, and the Molokai Airport. Of these airports, Honolulu International Airport
reported the most aircraft operations (43.81/o). The Kahului Airport and the Lihue
Airport are the next busiest with 21.8% and 11.2%, respectively. Together, Hilo and
Kona airports account for 18.6% of aircraft operations. An aircraft operation is an
aircraft arrival or departure.
• A prime vacation attraction, many visitors arrive in Hawaii daily. Nationally, Hawaii
consistently ranks 4th in foreign visitor arrivals since 1985. Law enforcement
officials have indicated that because of the large number of visitors entering and
exiting Hawaii and the large volume of air cargo and mail being transported, there is a
greater probability of illegal substances entering the State through the various
distribution methods.
• There are also nine commercial harbors throughout the state; two each on the islands
of Hawaii and Kauai, one each on the islands of Maui and Molokai, and three on the
island of Oahu. All this represents an enormous task to interdict drugs entering or
leaving the state.
Organized Crime and Gangs in Drug Traffickings
• The agencies continue to report that non-traditional organized crime and independent
operators are responsible for most drug trafficking in Hawaii. Ethnic groups such as
local Samoan, Tongan, and Hawaiian groups may compete for distribution of crystal
methamphetamine and/or cocaine at the street level. Although Filipino and other local
ethnic groups are active in the distribution of crystal methamphetamine to and in
Hawaii, Mexican organizations are primarily responsible for the manufacture of
methamphetamine in California that is then transported to the islands. Currently, there
is limited involvement by Korean nations as was prevalent in the early 90's.
Enforcement
Arrests in Hawaii, 1995-1997
Offense
1995
76
1996
51
1997
42
Murder and non -negligent manslaughter
Forcible rape
105
128
124
Robbery
607
678
649
Aggravated assault
705
631
718
Burglary
1,305
I,381
1,519
Larceny -theft
7,935
8,021
8,119
Motor vehicle theft
1,934
1,472
1,387
Arson
53
35
41
Drug abuse violations
3,570
3,470
3,942
Driving under the influence
4,115
4,733
5,145
Liquor laws
1,597
1,163
1,327
Source: FBI, Crime in the United States 1995-1997, October 1996, September 1997, November 1998
• Of those arrested for drug abuse violations in Hawaii during 1997,
724 arrests
involved individuals that were under 18 years old.
• Preliminary data from January to June of 1998 shows that there were 1,724 arrests for
that time period. Of those 363 were juvenile arrests.
Drug Arrests in Hawaii January to June, 1997-98
Offense
I Juvenile Arrests
Adult Arrests
Sale/Mfg.-Opium or
Cocaine
Sale/Mfg: Marijuana
Sale/Mfg.-Synthetic
Narcotics
Sale/Mfg.-Non-
Narcotics
ale/Mfg: Non -
Narcotics
Poss.-Opium or Cocaine
Poss. Marijuana
Poss. Synthetic
Narcotics
Poss. Non -narcotics
Total
Source: State of Hawaii_ Semi-
Jan-
Jan-
%
Jan-
Jan-
%
Jun
Jun
Change
Jun
Jun
Change
1997
1998
350
1997
1998
11.4
9
4
-55.6
187
212
13.4
19 17 -10.5 101 59 41.6
0 1 N/A 16 10 -37.5
5 0 -100 54 40 -25.9
20
25
25
622
442
-28.9
327
300
-8.3
352
342
-2.8
2
9
350
114
127
11.4
11
7
-36.4
139
129
-7.2
393
363
N/A
1,585
1,361
N/A
ntual Crime Summary, January 1999
• In 1997 Hawaii eradicated 34,675 outdoor marijuana plots, this was the highest in the
nation, followed by Kentucky with 6,655 plots.
B-8 7
Marijuana Seizures State of Hawaii, 1995-1997
In Hawaii during the Calendar Year of 1996 Statewide Narcotics Task Forces seized
58,223.02 grams of cocaine, 37,162.65 grams of methamphetamine, and 344.30
grams of heroin. 16
The Hawaii Police Department's Narcotics/Vice Airport Detail seized 149 grams of
heroin, 51,213 grams of cocaine, 34,274 grams of methamphetamine, and 1,565
grams of marijuana. 17
This profile was compiled by ONDCP Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse staff using
the most recent data available from open sources. The data presented are as accurate as
the sources from which they were drawn. The information contained in this profile should
not be used to rank or compare States or jurisdictions, due to differences in data
collection and reporting methods.
Last Updated: 3/25/99
1995
1996
1997
Outdoor Operations
Plots Eradicated
26,091
23,864
34,675
Cultivated Plants Eradicated
462,689
552,923
599,551
Ditchweed Eradicated
0
0
0
Indoor Operations
Grows Seized
17
10
13
Plants Eradicated
9,377
442
2,610
Total Plants Eradicated
472,066
553,365
602,161
Number of Arrests
1,302
774
1,044
Number of Weapons Seized
107
62
83
Value of Assets Seized
$408,384
$912,143
$1.290.632
In Hawaii during the Calendar Year of 1996 Statewide Narcotics Task Forces seized
58,223.02 grams of cocaine, 37,162.65 grams of methamphetamine, and 344.30
grams of heroin. 16
The Hawaii Police Department's Narcotics/Vice Airport Detail seized 149 grams of
heroin, 51,213 grams of cocaine, 34,274 grams of methamphetamine, and 1,565
grams of marijuana. 17
This profile was compiled by ONDCP Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse staff using
the most recent data available from open sources. The data presented are as accurate as
the sources from which they were drawn. The information contained in this profile should
not be used to rank or compare States or jurisdictions, due to differences in data
collection and reporting methods.
Last Updated: 3/25/99
Sources
' U.S. Census Bureau, Map Stats Web Site at http://www.census.gov/datamap/www/
' State of Hawaii web site at http://www.hawaii.gov/
t Office of National Drug Control Policy, Roster of FY 1998 Drug -Free Community Support Program
Grantees, at http://www,whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/prevent/drugfree/chart2.htm]
° Corrections Program Office, State Efforts to Reduce Substance Abuse Among Offenders, October 1998
Ibid.
° State of Hawaii. Department of Attorney General, Model Drug Law Conference: A Symposium on Crime
in Hawaii, December 1997
Office of National Drug Control Policy, Pulse Check: national Trends in Drug Abuse, Winter 1998
s Community Epidemiology Working Group, Epidemiological Trends in Drug Abuse, Volume 11'
Proceedings December 1997, 1998
° Office of National Drug Control Policy, Pulse Check: national Trends in Drug Abuse, Winter 1998
10 Community Epidemiology Working Group, Epidemiological Trends in Drug Abuse, Volume 11.
Proceedings December 1997, 1998
" Ibid.
" Ibid.
" Hawaii Department of Health, 1996 Hawaii Student Alcohol and Other Drug Use Survey, 1996
10 State of Hawaii, Department of Attorney General, Model Drug Law Conference: A Symposium on Crime
in Hawaii, December 1997
Ibid.
B Ibid.
" Ibid.
r ?;� APPENDIX C
BENJAMIN J. OAYETANO' J-w
MARGEAY9.BAOHSTEN
♦fvOPNE` iE�f.a
JOHN W. ANDERSON
•BAST Of.0 1 .*IC.rvly OE�E..I
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
425 QUEEN STREET
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813
(808) 586.1500
Crime Prevention and Justice Assistance Division
November 4, 1998
Lt. Chad Fukui
Vice Section
Hawaii County Police Department
349 Kapiolani Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Dear Chad:
Thank you for the courtesy extended to me by you and Nori
during my June 23, 1998 monitoring visit for the Statewide
Marijuana Eradication project, 96 -DB -13.
Enclosed is a copy of my monitoring report. No corrective
action is necessary; however, please note the suggestion regarding
calculating the 251 match.
If you have any comments or questions regarding the monitoring
report or if you disagree with any of the findings, please call me
at 586-1389.
Enclosure
C-1
Sincerely,
4�+aww IO
Earline Yokoi
Criminal Justice
Planning Specialist
roject No. S Title:
Agency: Hawaii �ouncv rolice ue8arcmenc
Project Period: 04/01/97-06/30/98 Period Covered: 04/01/97-06/23/98
Project Amount: S108.294 Federal S 36,098 Match S144.392 Total
Date of Visit: 06/23/98 Date of Report: 11/02/98
CPJA Staff: Farling YokoiC!!!�
Agency Staff: Lt Chad Fukui Nori Tanaka
I. COMPLETENESS OF PROJECT FILES
Findings: On File
Comments
A.
Signed Contract
B.
Grant Application
C.
Special Conditions
D.
Request for Funds [
E.
Financial Reports [
F.
Extension Request [
G.
Program Modification
H.
Budget Modification [
I.
Correspondence [
Recommendations:
(X or date)
X
J
X
]
N/A
X
]
]
X
]
X
] datad 1/21/98
] N/A
N/A
X
J
]
C-2
Project Monitoring Report
Page 4
VI.
�v
Findings:
Comments
Staff
alist:
Grantee: __None,
KL�Zl*AJV W3 \ \ I
administrator: UA�L"l�`� Date: "/1141
C-5
APPENDIX D
HAWAII POLICE DEPARTMENT
PROCEDURES FOR MARIJUANA ERADICATION OPERATIONS
I. PURPOSE
To establish guidelines relative to helicopter
reconnaissance and marijuana eradication missions
conducted by the Hawaii Police Department.
II. POLICY
For the safety and welfare of the public and law
enforcement personnel, all members participating in
marijuana eradication operations and other marijuana
enforcement efforts shall strictly adhere to the
policies and procedures as set forth by the Hawaii
Police Department. Members shall include personnel from
other law enforcement agencies assisting the Hawaii
Police Department in any aspect of marijuana enforcement
efforts.
III. HELICOPTER RECONNAISSANCE MISSION
A. The mission is to locate and map marijuana plots for
future eradication and search warrant missions.
H. Police aerial observers who are taking part in a
reconnaissance mission shall ensure that the
aircraft maintains a minimum altitude of 500 feet
above ground level.
IV. MARIJUANA ERADICATION OPERATIONS
A. The mission is to locate, through aerial
surveillance, cultivated marijuana plants on public
and private lands and in and around residential and
populated areas.
H. The helicopter, during marijuana eradication
operations, may be required to fly below the
altitude of 500 feet to insert and extract police
personnel from marijuana fields and to remove
harvested marijuana plants and equipment.
C. In situations where the helicopter is required to
fly below 500 feet, a distance of at least 150 yards
shall be maintained from all homes, buildings,
populated areas and immediate areas where livestock
may be present.
D-1
POLICE PROCEDURES FOR MARIJUANA ERADICATION OPERATIONS
PAGE 2
D. The helicopter shall maintain an altitude of 500
feet while directly over homes, buildings, populated
areas and immediate areas where livestock is
contained.
E. Flights over homes, buildings and populated areas
shall be avoided when airlifting, by long -line,
personnel, harvested marijuana and equipment.
F. In the event of an emergency, the police aerial
observer and aircraft pilot may use their discretion
in deviating from the established practices and
procedures.
V. MANUAL ERADICATION
A. The police aerial observer will direct ground
personnel to cultivated marijuana plants, while at
the same time, observing the requirements set forth
in Section IV, subsections C, D and E.
VI. RAPPEL METHOD OF ERADICATION
A. Rappel and STABO techniques to place personnel in
marijuana plots, and/or extract personnel from
marijuana plots are permitted, provided the height
and distance requirements as set forth in Section
IV, subsections C, D and E, are observed.
VII. IDENTIFYING HELICOPTERS AND VEHICLES
A. All helicopters involved in marijuana eradication
operations, with the exception of the Drug
Enforcement Administration's and the Hawaii Army
National Guard's helicopters, shall be marked with
the words "POLICE" or "HPD" in such a size that it
is discernible from at least 500 feet.
B. All vehicles taking part in a marijuana eradication
mission shall be marked with the words "POLICE" and
which can be discernible from a distance of at least
500 feet.
D-2
POLICE PROCEDURES FOR MARIJUANA ERADICATION OPERATIONS
PAGE 3
VIII. IDENTIFYING LAW ENFORCEMENT
A. All law enforcement personnel in a marijuana
eradication operation shall be properly identified
with the police issued coveralls, or other
appropriate attire approved by the Department, which
will distinguish them as police officers.
B. Outside agency personnel assisting in operations
shall also be identified with their agency uniform
and identification.
IX. COMPLAINT AND/OR INFORMATION LINE
A. During marijuana eradication operations conducted by
the Hawaii Police Department, the public shall be
provided a telephone number to call for all mission
complaints and/or information.
B. All complaints and/or comments received during a
marijuana eradication operation shall be documented
utilizing the approved form, and shall be maintained
for a period of at least three years.
X. SENSITIVE AREAS
All police personnel involved in marijuana eradication
operations shall familiarize themselves with all
environmentally sensitive areas on the Island of Hawaii
where passing and hovering helicopters may endanger
plants and wildlife.
D-3
(Amended: 07-30-97)
Appendix E
June 7 & June 10, 1999
Counter -Cannabis Field Operation Site Visit
by Legislative Auditor' Office
On June 7, two staff members of the Legislative Auditor's Office, Rory Flynn and Liana
Cox-lshizu, accompanied county police officers and DEA personnel while they conducted
aerial surveillance and ground-based marijuana eradication operations in the South Hilo and
Puna Districts. Prior to the site visit, Legislative Auditor staff reviewed the Hawaii County
Police Department's "Procedures for Marijuana Eradication Operations" (see Appendix D), an
internal departmental policy guide. The site visit enabled staff to observe firsthand how
helicopter reconnaissance and eradication work was performed by law enforcement
officers assigned to the Statewide Marijuana Eradication Task Force.
Prior to departure, required agreement/ waiver forms were signed. The site visit was
facilitated by Hilo Vice Commander Lieutenant Henry Tavares and DEA Senior Special
Agent Thomas K. Aiu, DCE/SP Coordinator for the State of Hawaii.
Counter -Cannabis Field Operation No. 99-025 commenced following a 7:00 a.m. briefing
at the Hilo Police Department. The operation consisted of four teams—a DEA mission
spotter/ security team flying in a DEA 4 -man helicopter; two operational teams flying in
privately piloted Windward Aviation helicopters, a National Guard team, and a ground-
based eradication/ utility team. All participating law enforcement personnel were suited in
identifying DEA and police overalls.
The airborne teams assembled at the DEA Hilo Aviation Facility at Hilo International
Airport. We asked the Windward Aviation pilot to fly overhead at an altitude of 500 feet
to enable us to judge the height and noise level from the ground and to observe the "HPD"
markings affixed to the Windward Aviation operational helicopter. Via horn blast, we
were told when the DEA aircraft was at 500 feet. The noise generated at that altitude was
not unbearably loud or obnoxious. We observed that the 20" white block letters used to
identify "HPD" could be discerned from the ground.
We flew with the surveillance team piloted by a DEA agent accompanied by a Hilo police
officer with 8 years of experience as an aerial spotter. We noticed that a special yellow
pointer on the chopper's altimeter dial marked 500 feet to assist the pilot in maintaining
the F.A.A. required altitude for flying above residential areas.
The aircraft's assignment was to identify marijuana plots and provide direction and security
for the teams aboard the operational helicopters who manually eradicate identified
marijuana plots by STABO insertion/ extraction techniques. Our spotter quickly identified
a backyard planter box of marijuana seedlings and another small patch located between a
APPENDIX E-1
residence and water tank, deemed sufficient to initiate a search warrant. Identified Plots
were marked by the aircraft's Global Positioning System for follow-up search and
eradication operations. Oftentimes, spotter surveillance is conducted before a CCFO and
operational helicopters proceed directly to already known or located marijuana plots.
We learned that identifying marijuana from the air is a skill mastered by some better than
others. Milkweed can be mistaken for marijuana, prompting occasional false sightings.
However, the distinguishing green shade of the plants, most easily observed in sunny
weather, is conspicuous to the trained eye, even at 500 feet. Our spotter swore that the
naked eye was the best tool for sighting marijuana, superior to infrared surveillance
devices. He added that surveillance at 500' or higher allowed for the best viewing.
Binoculars, we were told, were too constrictive for broad area surveillance and keeping a
watchful eye for nearby aircraft.
[NOTE: In testimony given before the Hawaii County Council Finance Committee on
October 19, 1993, Lt. Charles Chai commented on the Department's policy regarding use
of binoculars for surveillance. When asked by Councilman Keola Childs if binoculars were
used "at all for verification," Lt. Char replied: "We refrain from using any kind of
equipment like that because back in 1980 there was a Supreme Court ruling that prohibited
use of that kind of equipment for this type of work, this type of operation for surveillance
work."] ,
After a brief surveillance flight over Hilo and Paradise Park, we flew over Panaewa on
route to Kaiwiki, where several small patches were spotted alongside a gulch. We
observed an officer being inserted into a patch to eradicate plants while the DEA aircraft
provided aerial security.
While in the Panaewa area, our pilot dropped to an altitude of 200 feet directly above
some grazing cows to enable us to judge the disturbance to livestock. A few cows lazily
turned their heads to observe us but were otherwise unperturbed.
Ground teams, it was explained, count both plots and numbers of plants eradicated and
report totals to their team leaders throughout the day. Typically, plants are "ripped" by
cutting; whole plants are only pulled up by the roots when collected as evidence. Since
most growing activity occurs on vacant properties and suspects are seldom present, cutting
plants is the standard eradication procedure.
Additional surveillance was observed along Kaloli Point in Paradise Park. The DEA pilot
took great caution to maintain altitude and fly over the ocean to minimize the intrusiveness
of surveillance over a residential area. [NOTE: During an interview the following day,
former Vice Commander Lt. Chadwick Fukui explained that the use of private helicopters
has permitted police personnel to employ "stabo" and rappeling techniques that are
disallowed by the U.S. Army and National Guard unless conducted as part of a military
operation. Moreover, he noted that the use of military Huey and Blackhawk helicopters
E-2
would create a "military siege" atmosphere as these aircraft generate considerably more
noise, backwash and disturbance.]
At lunchtime at a LZ assembly point in Puna, it was reported that 50 marijuana patches had
been identified that morning by all teams. A long -bed pick-up truck was used to
consolidate the morning's haul of eradicated plants. By midday, the truck bed was filled
with plants to a depth of about one foot. The plants ranged from seedlings to 4-S'.
During the afternoon, a ground-based operation was observed along 28" Street in Paradise
Park. Due to the proximity of nearby houses and power lines, it was determined that
officers should approach the patch on foot, directed by a helicopter above maintaining the
required 500' altitude. About one dozen plants were eradicated from what appeared at
ground level to be a well -hidden patch.
Shortly afterwards, the DEA helicopter returned to Hilo Airport, just prior to the arrival of
the other helicopters and ground teams. Arriving aircraft brought still more ripped plants
to the hangar. One arriving team had confiscated approximately 15-20 plants in nearly
mature bud growth that were to be introduced as evidence in an arrest proceeding. The
plants were taken to the Police Department. The haul of eradicated plants was placed into
a county dump truck kept on site for the duration of the multi -day mission and parked at
night inside the locked hangar.
The following day, an archive of booby traps, including shotgun shells and animal traps,
were inspected by Legislative Auditor staff. A short video of a 1998 eradication operation
at a heavily forested 4500-5000' elevation above Waiohinu in Ka'u was also viewed. The
patch consisted of several thousand plants cultivated neatly in rows, hidden by customary
cloud cover.
The site visited concluded on the afternoon of June 10, 1999 when, at the invitation of Lt.
Henry Tavares, Legislative Auditor Assistant Liana Cox-Ishizu witnessed the burial of
18,701 plants at the Hilo landfill.
E-3
High Times - October, 1996
APPENDIX F
i j y
�.1
Wa I
"ana -NAv, a
BY BILL WEINBERG
Pakalolo. rhey call It In Hawafi= crazy tobacco.' Cannabis remains the stare< biggest cosi; .:rop. gin;
second biggest industry after munsm. despite a costly federal -led crackaown that !.as siasi;ea
drnmancaily -ter rhe past '0 -ears. The Pentagon -backed eradication 2fforr against mar, aiii;r :)i
Hawa'i'i ece: iomy s a '.:ivil' 'einam: Pesticide -spraying choppers patrol the jung!e in -,char
OP,-!!", ne`.v as r1 -<_r progran- for eventual export to the mainland. •)peranons Green Harvest and
Wipecur. "m:c:'. ' 2%ed in the Mid COS. have succeeded in putting any sizable guemii.) iarms t)ur r-
open anon. rivir? X. pnccis-.mil provoking resistance from a few brave citizens with the ;uts aro ,0e.: _
our In the wmos)here of Island machine politics. Pakalolos friends say rhe ,_lam -;n :;crit ars
herbai .nil be the key aro a sustainable, eco-fnendly economy `or jiawaf i. i or
Sul'V;s1119i1'. mora :hu.. Jne of Inese pa':<alolo advocates are in trouble `Mth the law.
THE WAR ON THE STATES BIGGEST CASH am
The heart of Hawaffs pakalolo economy is
the Puna district on the Big Island. which cos•
en the County of Hawaii This is openly ter
ogntxed by law enforcement and growers
alike. Puna is a hippiedlaticis backwater
where fertile sugar plantations lie fallow
while realeuate speculators sell subdivisions
on barren lava fields The sugar compantes
have largely decamped for the Phfbpp is
and the Caribbean under the GATT free•trade
regime. Pakalolo brought a mocilcisr of
prospenry in the'SOs but the econor y has
since gone bust. In Puna's Palm town, hero-
in and ice -smokable medwnpfienmine-
haw started to displace the hart as available
recreanonal drugs
The sums that Washington has spent aro
suppress the multibillion -dollar pakaWlo
economy are impressive. The mobdit union of
high tech military resources has been ground-
breaking. This remote little comer of the USA
has been witness to a rural paramilitary
operation unparalleled on the mainland
In the 70s. with most of the Big Island
under control of the state Department of
Land and Natural Resources I OLNR 1 or the
sprawling ranches of the old Hawaii i oli-
garchy
legarchy there was plenty of room for guerrilla
growers to spread Out as Aaok ( while I hip-
pies colonrud Puna and tis an- ns. There
was Ion of sunshine. good volcanic soil and
deme raunforem to hide in on die slops m-
iry from the south caw. MOtw started to
flow. and Uncle Sam took nonce
Hawar'is big eradication effort. Opera""
Green Hartim. first brought in National
Guard hekcapsen and federal money in
1917-iw years before Califorran's Campaign
Agakist Mw*Aww RanaV-and than became
a showcase for the Ragan/Bush Drug War.
In 1981, New York's Drug War Democrat.
Rep. Charles RaryeL brought his House Select
Committee on Narcotics Abuse aro Hilo. the
county sear. for special hearings and uS tax
dollars started to flow into Big Island law
enforcement.
The federal Onq War estabihhment
openly waved Green Harvest as a test war. In
1987. when the effort peaked a DLNR press
release on DFAaarthnated Big Island herbt-
cidespraying react'Documentation will be
used to produce a video presentation that
would /sic/be distributed nationwide to
inform and promote our eradication tech
niqus to other states of our nation.-
In
ation:In the record year of 1987. 1.7 million
plants were confiscated and the state actor
nay genemrs office estimated the palut
economy ar 1,10 billion. Law enforcement
said 15.000 people -a seventh of the Big
Island's populanan-were believed to be
involved in the pakaloks industry.
By 1988. the DFA reported that more
top -grade pot had been seated in Hawai t -
almost all of it on the Big Island -than in
any other two stats combined. The Big
Island. whit just over a thousandth of the
USA's land area. accounted for over a quar-
ter of all high-quality pot seized natiomwde.
But by ihen. Hawaiian yields were on the
way down as militarization and paranoia
took their toll.
In 1986. authorities firm unveiled a spe-
cial chopwrisounted herbicide spray -gun.
developed under DLNR direction. to be
affixed to the county% contracted heir
copten. Initially. they sprayed the toxic
-weed oil' herbicide 1 not FPA approved 1
mixed with a fluorescent red dye. Later.
after homeowners complained about spray
mg too close to their property. authorities
switched to the 'safer' Monsanto produced.
EPAapprovedglyphsate-based Rodeo her
bicide. Soon. law enforcement was boasting
the number of plants eradicated rather than
plants seized -almost 400.000 to 1989
F-1 .•. 1 4'
The military was brought in as the massive
operation entered an endgame with 1989s
Operation Wipeout -conceived as a coup de
grace to the decimated pakalolo industry.
A statewide Marijuana Eradication Task
Force began to coordinate state. federal and
local agencies. including she US Parks Service.
Customs. the state OLNR county and Civil Air
Patrol, and the LIS Anrsys 25th Infantry
Dtvision-which trained with DEA and county
police at the Pohakuloa Army Base, a high -
elevation eagle's nest in the lava desert above
the timber line. bristling with futuristic black
helicopter
Four RFdC Phantom reconnaissance jets
were brought to the Big Island with a crew
of 50 from Bergstrom Air Force Base in
Texas to map pakalolo fields with infrared
photo gear. The Phantoms gadded the island.
zeroing in on the remaining pakalolo opera-
tions for the chopper eradication teams.
Three types of choppers are involved in
the continuing raids -DEA spotter chopper
the county copi private contract choppers for
the spray teats, and National Guard chop-
pers which were initially used for hauling out
plant but are increasingly used for training.
surveillance and reconnaissance. Actual spear
ing has phased out slashing plants by hand,
After annual federal outlays of up to
$600.000 for eradiation on the Big Island
alone. the budgets started to wind down In
1991. the Heb TnburwHaalidprovided a
I not quite complete) breakdown of the Fedf
$228.000 donation to Big Island eradication
efforts: 220 hours of aircraft rental as $650
an hour. 510.000 for an herbicide sprayer.
S 10.000 for herbicide. 540.000 in owemme
pay and $10.000 for •coefldentuai (ands.'
In 1993. then -Big Island pdke chief
Victor Vierra -who offered the Mand as a
testing ground for the new hgh•tech chop•
permounted herbicide sprapgun-tilled any
debate over the eradication programa
bunch of crap:
Since them with the bulk of in work
done. Operation Wipeous has soled back to
low-level maintenance ops. The Green Parris
Koko Bonk is the only county counithnem•
ber to consistently vote against accepting the
current 510.000 -plus in federal grain for
the island's eradiation program The connnu-
mg spot -and spray rads correspond to the
two annual harvests: fall/eary winter. at the
end of the April November 'long season: and
late winter/spring. the end of the 0ecember-
March 'short season.
Chopper activity has also coincided with
undercover raids which even the staid
Honolulu Advertiser in an April 1994 ediiom
al. decried as smacking of -police state tac
tics: Secret arrests have no place in Amencan
society Thar s why we re surprised and
Y
7RE 70 -YEAR
IRACKDOWN
ON � 1A,RIJUANA
HAS LED TO ,AN %,,7CASE YTHE
JSE )F DRUGS LIKE
H- SOI 1, COCAINE
Ai"F) rC_—SMOKABLE'; a. '
.Ai .'PHEI ANINE FISF"it w a s�
alarmed to learn than as Island police admit
to hauag made almost four daunt racier
arrefn In recent wee/¢ The areas hale
been part ofa JO*wmh undercover drug
operation CAW riser~ eoafrbne' We
favor ding control lair not are rhe cost of our
bask rilift One of due oldest of public
twat* a common denernkuror of
Amrkm crNtihW lass: is the polka blotier
open for arimse to see -upon whlds are
effrted dile rsNra �Ihaae /IkM affil «rf-
todl: from town oyaab ro mm nwrdevers
i9a the Bg hww poke hese sec Upit sept
raj term lemur forpersons amrsiv In
Operanon Coasthne'
Meanwhile. the ice plague is moving from
urban Hwwkdu to the rural Bg Island. Even
the aahe"nes acknowledge this is a result of
the pakalolo crackdown A 1989 report by
the state attorney general A Surer of
Hawaris War on Omga wrnet *As the sup•
ply of locally produced marijuana decreased.
methamphetamine. coarse and imported
marijuana would begin blowing in to answer
the local demand"
Mary Jo Westmoreland of the West
Hawaii Child Protection Team law year told
West Hawan Today. -1ce is everywhere. and
it s cheap.' noting that increasing numbers of
newboms were testing positive for ice. 'I
think a lot of it has leo do with the cost.
F-2
because the price of par has gorse up so high
So they buy these cheaper dogs that have
muds greater effects on the bdant.'
In Paha the watt has established a nee•
dle exchange program which has drawn fire
from county law enforcement for'encourag
ing' dig we. In an experimental program.
Dig Addiction Services of Hawad. which rur
a methadone clink in Hilo. is adding
acupuncture and traditional Hawai tan herbs
and heahrg technitpaes.
0a local health care workers see the
eHon as inadequate. Hdo risme OD. Hackley
told West Hawaii Today. 'If there s arwhmg
that needs to be done. it's treatment. They
spew all this money on helicopter and wher
a mom needs treatment. we can't find a
place to send her
THE GRASS-ROOTS RESISTANCE
The Big Islands pakalolo crusaders arc using
a thneeproneed strategy, seeking to legit
imre cultivation and use of the plant on
sacramental, medicinal and industrial
grounds.
Roger Chmue was a founding member of
the Hawaii Hemp Council in 1991. Aaron
Anderson. a true back to the -land hippie
colonist who lives in a solar powered rautwa
ter-catchmeni cabin converted from an old
van at Kalapana. is a founder of Friends of
the Red Road which is fighting in court to
keep power lines out of this laidAmck sea•
side stretch of Puna. Both Anderson and
Christie have been indicted for'commerctal
promotion of menjwni by rhe county! and
are arguing in court that they were ancomu
tunonaly singled out for selective prosear
tion because of their acmnt politics
In May 1991. Aaron Anderson ordered
500 pounds of sterilized Chinese henpseed
from Specialty Commodities in Fargo, NO for
a planned hemp-gou Ea banquet for Hdiss
homeless Police say they intercepted the
package after a dog staffed it out. and & est -
ed Anderson Chnstu was busted when he
showed up at the poke station with recetp s
and other doeumemanom slowing the the
shipment was legal
A motion to dmunrea the charges on
grounds that startle hempseed is legal was
dented by State Judge Shumchs Kkm ea. The
dental was appealed and in'93 the state
Supreme Count remanded the case back to
the lower court for a'full evidentiary hear
ing on whether there was criminal intent.
Even the DEA produced an affidavit arresting
to me legal nature of the purchase.
The charges against Christie were uln
mately dropped. Anderson is free on a
$2.000 bond while the case is pending. If
convicted. he faces 10 years to prison -the
same as for nwdauglrar. Chnstle and
Anderson have wed Hwalt County and court,
tY prosecutor Jay Kkrwa at federal can for
illegal prosecution and violating first
A meMmem Evils
The legal bank han't slowed down the
Pew Amendrrhent•pnotecied acriva , though
In 1995. Roger Chriute applied to the
DEA for a license to paw industrid-gnde
hemp on a farm on die &g Island's north -
emu Hannakua coat evert eliciting the severe -
we support of (Kg Island Maya Steve
Yamashi t. A Yamashim aide wrote the OMs
regisnranon ustin regarding the license Last
Febr un• powR out tfw hemp is among
the vital crops listed in a National Defense
Industrial Resources Preparedness Order
signed by President BW CNmon aha year.
In a January 1995 leer to Clinton
Harvest County prosecutor Jay Kimura had
asked the President to remove hemp from
the list. '4s a local prosecutor. Iger to see the
carriage and social proiktm caused by both
legal and illegal drugs in my, community.
Your action to ehmNkw 'hempfrom
Enicume Order No 12919 will assist me in
reducing the availability of illegal drugs -
Poltce chief Wayne Carvalho chimed to
for the press: *The Ihempj proponents are
using the false emnronmmeal arguments to
Promote the use of a drug that bears sub
F-3
stannal health risks to the user.'
Christie on the other hand sari that end.
iration and pmhtbiiion arc a substantial eco-
nomic risk to the Big Island's diverse
community.
The marijuana tourism dried up: says
Christie 'In the seventies Hilo had five
health400d stores—now we're down to one.
Parks are manicured and empty. and the
sugar plantations are going bellyup. We have
some of the best agricultural land in the
world—with deep soil and a year-round grow,
in season—lying fallow while all the agncul-
lural workers are string on their thumbs'
Just as an alternative economy had start -
ad to mane it was crushed says Chmine.
'r1ieY've scared away or jailed or put on
parole 90 percent of the growers Novi
takes a much more determined grower to
make a much smaller crop Years ago. you
go, twele. 0fteen-foot planes Now tis just
We link bushes People are terrorized by the
dapper raids—they're afraid of losing their
lobs homes olds"
In addition to the poisonspewing geo-
thermal plan at Pam local producers bum
sugarcane waste products to generate power
for the Hawaiian Bectnal Company
(NUO1. With canewaste supplies now run-
ning out. these plans are shemng down or
comae mg to diesel fuel Christie says hemp
would make a better replacement. stung
agricultural jobs and local self-sufficiency.
HB.CO has some of the highs electric rases
in the country. and brownouts and blackouts
are frequent I we related story. Page 31).
Oavd Tarrus. a awe legislator from Kona
on rhe west side of the island has introduced
legislation for both industrial heaps and
medical marijuana His most recent effort.
the Hawao Industrial Hemp Bill. was voted
down in April after approval by the state
House Agncultum Commitee.
At least two ictal hemp activists have
launched their own long -shot candidacies for
maw of the Big Island Aaron Anderson
pLam on running on the Ulsenanan ticket.
Fellow pakalolo crusader Jonathan -Make
Sense' Adler also plans a bid. with has own
'Make Seise" tion -party. 'There are still ten
thousand growers on Big Island.' tan Adler.
'In *11 it was forty dollars for an ounce of
primo buds Buds have always been our pn-
nury resource as long as I've been here:
While the price has been tacked up more
than tenfold since the 70s. local indica
hybrids remain diverse. potent and available.
with names like Puna Butter. Koro Gold. Kau
Kromk. Papaalda Bubblegum. Black Congo
and Amass uiu Blue. These distinctive strains
mcorporate seed stock from all over the
world—from Amsterdam to Africa. "Thi is the
crossroads of the Pacific: sari Adler handing
me a fragrant sample of CONTINUED am PAGE rA
the hawafiai
marijuana w
anausontaiPAarir locallime-green
1�D southem African stock'We are
ly
er
should be
treated as such.'
And despite the choppers and the heroin.
Puna remains the center of a growing hemp
consciousness home to craftspeople like
Stephanie Crystal. who makes hemp -and -
philodendron maracas'I lave working with
hemp: she sats -Ifs strong and it doesn't
destroy trees
Jonathan Adler is a member of the
Religion of Jews Church. whose local patri-
arch is the Reverend Dennis Shields of Kona
Rev. Shields is a strong believer in the spintw
el and curatwe powers of cannabis Before
hes son died of abdominal cancer in 1981.
hid had to smoke grass to alleviate side-
effects from chemotherapy. Rev. Shields cred-
its cannabis with extending his son's Ilk by
15 months and is now petitioning the Courtly
Council for a'healing house' where patients
can smoke manluana He ate% the recent fed-
eral Ninth Circuit appeals ruling recognising
the rights of Rastafarians to argue a religious
defense of marijuana use under the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act
'When you give somebody something pos-
itive to believe in. that's faith healing: says
Rev. Sholds.'What compelling interest does
the state have in suppressing faith healingr
Cannabis is a sacrament of the Religion
of Jesus Church. which is recognised as
legitimate by the county. Followers of the
New Age sect consider themselves
'Jesummans rather than Chrisnarn
because they follow the teachings and
example of Jesus. rather than believing
that he died to atone for mankind's ongi-
nal sin. They are voracious readers of then
sacred text. the Uranna Book (written in
Chicago to the '50s1. and occasionally
claim to be in touch with higher spiritual
beings who reside in outer space. The
church first formed in 1969 in Nonhem
California. then established a seminary on
Kauai. The now -legendary seminary
grounds had pakalolo planted in the shape
of a big peace sign. It was busted in'72.
Rev. Shields says cannabis 'amplifies
the worship of God' and -increases spiritu-
al elevation.' Citing Exodus 30:23 and
Isaiah 4 3:2 4 off the top of his head.
Shields maintains that there are references
to cannabis throughout the Bible—some-
times
ible—sometimes confused with the plant 'calamus'
through a translation error.
'The prohibition of cannabis is nothing
less than a religion prohibition' he says. 'I
tell the County council the same thing Moses
told the Pharaoh—let my people go. The War
on Drugs is a civil Vktiiam.'
On November 4. 1994. Rev. Shields was
busted at his home on the edge of the jungle
overlooking the Kona cam 'I was sitting in
my house and truckload after truckload of
cops came up the road with' SWAT vests and
automatic rifles he relates He was charged
with possession oft six to eight ounces of
'oldymoldy' and three unregistered rifles he
used to scare wild pip out of his garden He
beat the weapons charge b4cause the rifles
were grandfadeved He is fighting the
pakslolo charge an relocius-freedom and
privacy grounds.
Since 1979. Hewell has had a right -to -pri-
vacy amendment smiler to the one in
Alaska's coronation that resulted in personal-
quanmy legalisation therein 1975. The
Reverend is now purmng that amendment to
the rest in die courm
'Sugar plartatiom we closing, and the 84
Island has some of the higher rano of adcide
and teen pnegrom in the coultpe' sari Rev.
ShkWs'Sooner or Wer. they goes face the vot-
en and tell'em they're doing something ngW
HEMP FOR SOVUBGNI1'i
There is no doubt that the cannabis plant lois
been groom in Hawaii for a very long nine. A
hemp industry was thriving back when the
Kingdom of Havrer'i wait known to sailors as
it* 'Sandwich Islands'
A Journal of a Ressdeae to rhe Sandwich
Girds Airing rhe Pers J821182`4 and
1825 by the missionary U Stewart. posies
mousy published in 1870. makes note of
goods which were offered in annual tributes
to the K(rtg: '/logs dif& flak fowi pooraos
Tenn lana bar term mehorr-casioes fishing
nes qpa reran bids lavthrrs unwvougfu
bends do 8e'
710 Bottom at /4aat Observations and
Inpertaa of a Mahal 0Bycerotnr4 a SAW of
Fourteen lfm- in Thom Idrsds on a Mlrsol-
Wrby Luden Young. US Navy. 1898. contains
the followesg passage: Tamp Iso been expert
most nosh andrM samplesN waveP�
noureed by expem to be of good krydt ckm
srroryg and fairy bnglit The plat is free from
et0mas among die anew robeand it is nor
vilixed by ram orsronns nor by drought. 770
eperm of cubilvUtian a sbrasr ttorhM and
dwmM per oar was loud to be at the rare
of Owern and onehdl was of clean fiber.'
Things have sure changed
Few leaders in the faaignirwing Native
Hawaiian sovereignty movement speak out on
hemp The notion of forest grny itself is already
a lightning rod for controversy. Fakalolo use
can be easy exploited by the aumonhes to
cnmtalite the movenxm--some of whose
F-4
leaden are already afoul of the law.
If there is a plant that is revered by the sov-
edeignty movement. it is taro—the indigenous
roe crop which sustained Hawaiian cmimanon
for millennia before Europeans amved, but is
now being squeezed from the market by main.
land grain imports. Throughout the islands sot
emgmyminded Native fanners are reclaiming
lard for taro altNanon
However. hemp rsseen by some as part of
a mix of aliersonve crops and technologies
which can mmdmve Hawafian economic rode•
pendence. favid Po is a look adviwr to
Nation of Hawaii leader Bumpy Kanahele (see
HoWi mess News Sept.'961 who envisions a
fkraeilan economy based on'bioregional
mapping and modeling.' last year he attended
the Agro-Tedinoogical Instinne at.
Vogginhagen in the Netherlands where he
studied hemp and other crops He sees hemp
'I TELL THE COUNTY
COUNCIL THE SAME
THING MOSES TOLD
THE PHARAOH -
LET MY PEOPLE G0.
THE WAR ON DRUGS
IS A CML VIETNAM.'
-REV. DENNIS SHIELDS
as a porereW 'Integrated rotational indusinal
crop' for Hawau'L along wide bamboo and fast.
growing trees. the funne of agrotedr in
Havatl is not so much for profit as for sustain-
ability and self-sufficiency.' he says -If you can
reduce the dependency on oil and imports you
have profited gready.'
For soms pakalolo reverence h pan of the
Native principle of aloha aria -love of the favid
Kaki Martin Knumaka and Garry Ksupoham
Owning we two *angry Hawatanu' When I
miser them. they, are living on the public beach
a Ho'okeria The friend who arranged the
meeting telk no. 'Don't worry They promised
not to kill you' How generous I think
'We arc not homeless people.' says
Manta. -Dont call me a squatter. We are
landless people: Maintaining their beach
side campsite is a daily struggle with police
and hostile haoles 'The county spent
$200.000 to bring Vanna White of Wheel
of Fortune to the Big Island on a promo
nonal stunt while Hawaitam are getting
thrown off the beaches. Now they re ship
ping the brother off to Texas.- (Convicts
/from Hawai i s overcrowded prisons are
/ being exported to the quasipmatrzed
Texas prison system.) 'Fuck the United
States government[*
Mamn calls himself a •bomagatn
Hawaiian.' In and out of )ail since youth, he
fly up drink to ger rowdy for real -in defense
of his rights, -Now, I tell cops'Please fuck me
up so I can sue you like a good American boy:
Garry. a Vietnam vet says -There's a war
coming Ill fight for this with all the skill Ow
fucking gave tie. This is where we were born
this is where were gonna die. For most of us,
any day's a good day to die.'
Marin asks me of I puhi pakakid, He lights
a fat one. and his tone mellows a little.
•Hawai tan culture was a totally biodeg ed.
able culture.' he says -Everything went back
into the amts -the earth We had aquaculture
thousands of years before the West But now
the hack system is heading toward destruction
If we don t wise up and respect the fucking
Anna were all gonna die because rwnu.e will
shut down Martin says the Howr'tan coaepi
Of porta needs to be restored •Asa Is right.
eousneu-to be One. totally in balance wsh
your environment. You po owith God 'cuzWit
smoke the herb. Coca is ports, but cocene is
Crystallized poison:
Dwight Kondo is a founder of the Hawaii
Hemp Comparry. While he has taken a tempo-
ratty retreat from activism since the effort fell
apart las year. he maintains an open agenda
Of uniting the hemp and sovereignty moyr
menu He sees the nearly simultaneous pay
sage in 1993 of the Hawaii Apology Act and
the Religious Freedom Reworanon Act as a
sign of changtng nest. -There was a state of
war here for one hundred years to '93. Bloody
war in a paradise tourist arise. am The US
conceded defeat—admitted it was an act of
war against a friendly people:
•Hawai taro were one of the lay people to
get cannaW Sap Konde, •Bw help caugld
on big by the 1820%. Pa's biggw than the rr&
Italy today. Puny bud hN been woo a more
than gold since '93. The yaw attorney gen"W
called it an achar ennea. But this shows a
change in the value system People are wtling
to pan with gold fa poi. The rnwouanw
smoking popuslahon here is immense. Ifs to
erated and understood by mow people here
to be benign. What sive need to do is politicize
n -make people see that then oppressor, is
linked to their solution. Dependency on the
mainland means this plague of crack and lee.
Hemp means sovereignty.
-rm not Kamka Mao# Ithe Hawai tans'
word for themselves in their own tonguel. Tm
full blooded Japanese But 1 want to do it right
here. I want to make cannabis credible for the
Hawaiian leadership. Its an integral pan of
our Independence We will have no freedom d
we don r have this freedom too.- a
NATURAL
A natural X-stasy alternative
Only $995
FOR 4 DOSES
TOLL FREE
1=888=8134874
id(Y®r
FASTEST SERVICE Dbettrtygptdblbdtae
MARIJUANA
draw lrr-Mr.wtr� 41111111,Mrnw ON Msaar.yMaraCrHr. ar«iGrOwe
e
with the now INSIDER and dw oletrt a OELU]!E •
•TM aMIFNaatdMialYrYM1MYWweaWserwie.•-IME Tara
C
'ted saYNY.vrayafr.r I.rnNae.k•-VAUCOAR aEYEW of goM
swlw.eWa.M atrst.s—O.knMraf hNew u at..raw
YY.rrY.��ri1,
s�•r.+�ir►sr.arreaatlraawrt.r..ra
W�irrarr�.waa�oerlws�r
'.I
r+ws ss�rpr
7rawltaar.MtYrapr.r,Ywrae.lrr,
o.Iw.myMl Flew
WMrarw.M1aiYffeiY Ms_
61 N.utrh.l
IT.arYrYM.Nrar.NhaaYr.ws
taae..a..ar.w.tstoenrl s
M
IAa.IN Ir1aeY1�1.111MLaii. Ms__
srlchear
etartte.�ier...dnre. Jtw.rt ass_
aeravalrlr
yeaeasadlw11111611 raw�w. a7s_
aagada•r.rraatEwawEwlarar MY Moa_
a.afaarraN
dial GUWALar..tttrw.ad6aw MAL Mr_
PA.Bolost
01yhltaNadtkM. mmwiW sins_
INMesim CAI
tial M a�
sirs
F-5
ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE DIVISION
State of Hawaii Department of Health
APPENDIX G
1998 Hawaii Student Alcohol and Drug Use Study
by
Renee Storm Mingle, Ph.D.
Michael D. Miller, Ph.D.
The University of Hawaii at Manoa
Hawaii Department of Health
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division
Kukuhihewa Building
601 Kamokila Boulevard, Room 360
Kapolei, Hawaii 96707
1999
Data presented here are excerpted from the comprehensive volume The 1998
Hawaii Student Alcohol and Drug Use Study (1991-1998): Ha wail Adolescent
Treatment Needs Assessment (Mingle & Miller, 1999) which is available
throughtout the Hawaii State Public Library System, at Hamilton and Sinclair
Libraries, University of Hawaii at Manoa, and at each of the District School
Offices.
G-1
Selected data from the 1998 Hawaii Student Alcohol and Drug Use Survey relating to the
prevalence of student marijuana use, attitudes, treatment need, risk and protective factors
in Hawaii Count v is shown, as follows:
LIFETIME PREVALENCE REPORTS: Percentage of Hawaii District school students
using marijuana (hash, pakalolo, pot, weed) at least once in their lifetime:
6th Grade 81h Grade 10th Grade 121, Grade
No 91.5% 73.2% 51.9% 40.0%
Yes 8.5% 26.7% 48.1% 60.0%
30 -DAY PREVALENCE OF MARIJUANA USE: Percentage of Hawaii District school
students using marijuana (hash, pakalolo, pot, weed) at least once in the last thirty
days:
6th Grade 81h Grade 10th Grade 121h Grade
No 95.8% 84..2% 70.3% 71.8%
Yes 4.2% 15.7% 29.6% 28.2%
3. QUANTITY -FREQUENCY USE SCALE: Marijuana use based on the frequency of use
in the last 30 days and the amount typically used:
4. FREQUENCY OF DRUG USE: During the last 30 days, how many days (if any) have
you used marijuana (hash, pakalolo, pot, weed)?
6th Grade
8th Grade
10th Grade
121h Grade
Abstainer
93.9%
78.8%
58.8%
55.0%
Infrequent
2.3%
8.3%
15.5%
22.3%
Light
1.4%
1.7%
6.9%
5.9%
Moderate
0.9%
5.0%
8.6%
5.6%
Moderate/Heavy
0.5%
2.2%
3.8%
2.9%
Heavy
0.6%
3.7%
6.2%
8.0%
4. FREQUENCY OF DRUG USE: During the last 30 days, how many days (if any) have
you used marijuana (hash, pakalolo, pot, weed)?
G-2
61, Grade
8th Grade
101h Grade
12th Grade
None
95.8%
84.2%
70.3%
71.8%
1 to 2 days
1.6%
4.3%
8.4%
10.6%
3 to 5 days
1.0%
2.2%
4.9%
2.3%
6 to 9 days
0.1%
3.0%
4.0%
2.3%
10 to 19 days
0.3%
1.8%
4.0%
2.3%
20 or more days
0.8%
4.2%
8.2%
10.3%
G-2
IE
5. MARIJUANA DEPENDENCY AND ABUSE: Based on DSM -111 criteria which assess a
variety of negative consequences related to substance use:
6" Grade 8" Grade 10" Grade 12" Grade
Marijuana dependent 2.0% 9.0°h 17.5% 21.6%
Marijuana abuser 0.3% 1.3% 4.7% 2.2%
6. PERCEPTIONS OF ILLICIT DRUG AVAILABILITY: How difficult do you think it
would be for you to get marijuana (hash, pakalolo, pot, weed), if you wanted some?
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WITH EACH RISK FACTOR: Percentage of Hawaii
District school students classified by each factor as "at risk" for substance abuse. Risk
factors are listed in their order of importance (e.g., ability to predict substance use):
2
8"
10"
12"
Very difficult
83.0%
49.3%
16.5%
11.6%
Fairly difficult
9.0%
19.3%
18.6%
15.3%
Fairly easy
7.8%
31.2%
64.7%
73.0%
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WITH EACH RISK FACTOR: Percentage of Hawaii
District school students classified by each factor as "at risk" for substance abuse. Risk
factors are listed in their order of importance (e.g., ability to predict substance use):
8. PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WITH EACH PROTECTIVE FACTOR: Percentage
of Hawaii District school students classified by each factor as receiving some
"protection" from developing a substance abuse problem. Similar to risk factors, the
protective factors are listed in their order of importance (e.g., ability to predict
nonuse):
6"
6"
8"
10"
12"
1.
Exposure to friends' substance use
3.5%
16.9%
45.1%
51.2%
2.
Perceived peer substance use
2.2%
13.9%
35.0%
41.6%
3.
Exposure to community substance use
11.1%
21.3%
38.6%
37.1%
4.
Exposure to family substance use
14.5%
28.1%
34.0%
36.3%
5.
Availability of substances
4.1%
20.8%
51.9%
63.9%
6.
Deviance
6.9%
20.4%
34.8%
26.5%
7.
Perceived family drug use
13.1%
28.1%
34.1%
29.5%
8.
School commitment
9.4%
25.9%
30.2%
24.3%
9.
Sensation seeking
19.8%
23.9%
23.3%
20.3%
10.
Parental awareness
10.6%
18.6%
27.8%
25.0%
11.
Family connectedness
11.0%
18.6%
22.7%
25.9%
12.
School connectedness
14.4%
25.6%
26.9%
25.0%
13.
Parental support
7.0%
16.3%
20.5%
21.3%
14.
Educational aspirations
14.5%
16.7%
18.0%
20.1%
8. PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WITH EACH PROTECTIVE FACTOR: Percentage
of Hawaii District school students classified by each factor as receiving some
"protection" from developing a substance abuse problem. Similar to risk factors, the
protective factors are listed in their order of importance (e.g., ability to predict
nonuse):
G-3
6"
8"
10"
12"
1 Peer disapproval of substance use
44.7%
28.9%
16.6%
10.1 %
2. Parental substance use sanctions
76.3%
60.7%
43.9%
31.6%
3. Average grades on report card
33.4%
41.9%
35.0%
38.0%
4. School prevention efforts
25.1%
12.1%
3.3%
2.4%
5. Family prevention efforts
39.9%
28.0%
20.1%
17.1%
6. Religiosity
17.9%
16.9%
18.9%
22.0%
G-3
9. GRADE OF FIRST DRUG USE: What grade were you in when you first tried
marijuana (hash, pakalolo, pot, weed)?
G-4
6t^ Grade
8e Grade
10th Grade
12t^ Grade
Never
91.5%
73.2%
51.9%
40.0%
3rd grade or before
1.0%
1.9%
1.6%
1.1%
Grade
2.3%
1.7%
1.4%
1.1%
Grade 5 or 6
5.2%
8.9%
10.5%
5.8%
Grade 7 or 8
0.0%
14.3%
19.9%
18.2%
Grade 9 or 10
0.0%
0.0%
14.7%
21.7%
Grade 11 or 12
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
12.1%
10. AMOUNT OF ACTUAL SUBSTANCE USE:
On the days
you smoke marijuana
cigarettes/joints
(hash, pakalolo,
pot, weed) or take bong hits,
how much do you
typically use?
6th Grade
8th Grade
10th Grade 12th Grade
Never used
92.5%
75.9%
55.9°h
52.6%
1 joint or less
3.9%
11.3%
20.4%
25.7%
2-4 joints
2.2%
5.9%
14.0%
10.3%
5joints
0.1%
1.8%
1.6%
1.7%
More than 5 joints
1.0%
4.9%
7.8%
9.4%
G-4
FIGURE 10
County Treatment Needs for The State of Hawaii in 1998
Using the DSM -111-R Criteria, by Grade
(Entries are percentages)
40
6th Grade
8th Grade 36.5
35 IOth Grade
■ 12th Grade
30
28.6 28.3 28.6
z - 27
25 24.7 25.3
22.7
20
X `
15 14.8; 15.41
11.3,
10 9.1
5 4.4
2.4 3.1 3.4
0---- -- - -- --- _..
Hawaii County Kauai County
City and County of Honolulu Maui County
FINDINGS: Treatment needs are generally highest in Hawaii County and lowest in the City and County of Honolulu.
Appendix B, Table 4, shows that the greatest proportion of students with treatment needs in the City and County of Honolulu
are from the Windward Oahu District The percentage of students needing treatment for any substance abuse problem in
Windward Oahu District are less than Hawaii County but nearly equal to Maui and Kauai Counties. All other districts from
Oahu have a smaller proportion of students needing treatment than in Hawaii, Maui, or Kauai Counties.
NOTES: "Any Substance Abuse" includes students who are classified as either dependent on or abusers of alcohol, illicit drugs
(marijuana, stimulants, depressants, or hallucinogens), or both alcohol and illicit drugs according to the DSM -111-R criteria.
Refer to Appendix B, Table 4, for district -level treatment needs.
Executive Summary - 17 G-5
APPENDIX H
Executive Office of the President
Office of National Drug Control Policy
:iafy
OND CP June 1999
Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse
Drug Use Trends
The Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse has prepared
this fact sheet to summarize drug use trends in the United
States. Populations covered in this fact sheet include the
general household population, students, active military
personnel, and criminal offenders, as surveyed by the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S.
Department of Defense, and the U.S. Department of Jus-
tice. Some individuals, such as homeless people, are diffi-
cult to reach using standard survey techniques; thus, little
is known about their drug use. For information on survey
methodologies, please referto the document sources listed
on pages 5 and 6. The data used to prepare figures are
presented at the end of the report.
FACT SHEET
General Population
The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Adminis-
tration (SAMHSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services have sponsored several national surveys
to track drug use trends. One of the most widely known is
the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA),
which interviews persons age 12 and older living in
households. In 1991, the survey was expanded to include
civilians living on military installations and persons living
in college dormitories and homeless shelters. Since Octo-
ber 1, 1992, the survey has been sponsored by SAMHSA.
Earlier surveys were sponsored by NIDA. According
Age of respondent and
Year
recency of drug use
1979
1983
1988
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
12-17
Ever
31.8%
27.4%
22.8%
20.9%
18.4%
15.1%
16.4%
20.3%
22.2%
22.1%
23.7%
Past year
24.3
20.7
14.9
14.1
13.1
10.4
11.9
15.5
18.0
16.7
18.8
Past 30 days
16.3
13.2
8.1
7.1
5.8
5.3
5.7
8.2
10.9
9.0
11.4
18-25
Ever
69.0%
62.9%
58.1%
54.9%
53.9%
50.9%
50.2%
46.3%
45.8%
48.0%
45.4%
Past year
45.5
37.4
29.1
26.1
26.6
24.1
24.2
24.6
25.5
26.8
25.3
Past 30 days
38.0
25.3
17.9
15.0
15.4
13.1
13.6
13.3
14.2
15.6
14.7
26-34
Ever
49.0%
59.5%
61.2%
59.8%
58.9%
57.9%
58.2%
56.1%
54.8%
53.1%
50.8%
Past year
23.0
26.2
19.1
18.4
15.5
15.4
14.6
14.8
14.6
14.6
14.3
Past 30 days
20.8
23.1
14.7
10.9
10.0
11.4
9.5
8.5
8.3
8.4
7.4
35 and older
Ever
11.8%
18.1%
20.0%
22.5%
23.7%
24.4%
26.1%
27.7%
27.9%
29.0%
31.5%
Past year
3.9
5.5
5.1
5.2
5.5
4.4
5.5
5.7
5.0
5.3
6.1
Past 30 days
2.8
3.9
2.3
3.1
3.4
2.5
3.0
3.2
2.8
2.9
3.6
All ages 12 and older
Ever
31.3%
34.4%
34.0%
34.2%
34.1%
33.3%
34.2%
34.4%
34.2%
34.8%
35.6%
Past year
17.5
16.3
12.4
11.7
11.1
9.7
10.3
10.8
10.7
10.8
1 1.2
Past 30 days
14.1
12.1
7.7
6.7
6.6
5.8
5.9
6.0
6.1
6.1
6.4
Now Any illicit drug use includes use of marijuana, cocaine, hallucinogens, inhalants, heroin, or nonmedical use of sedatives, tranqutI zers. soma Ian is,
or analgesics. Prior to 1979, data were not totaled for overall drug use and instead were published by specific drug type only.
Estimates for 1979 through 1993 may differ from estimates for these survey years that were published in other NHSDA reports. The estimates shown
here for 1979 through 1993 have been adjusted to improve their comparability with estimates based on the new version of the NHSDA instrument that
was fielded in 1994 and subsequent NHSDAs.
Source: National Household Survey on Drug Abuse.
NCJ-175050
APPENDIX H-1
to NHSDA, the number of current illicit drug users did
not change significantly between 1996 and 1997 (table 1).
In 1997, 6.4% (13.9 million persons) of the population
age 12 and older reported using an illicit drug during
the past month, down from 14.1% (25.4 million per-
sons) of the population age 12 and older in 1979.
In 1997, an estimated 0.7% (1.5 million persons) of
the population age 12 and older reported using co-
caine, including crack, at least once in the past month.
Percent reporting use
10% L
%__
2% -------- --
0% _ 7_ ________r
am 1911 19115 am 1990 Im lm 19% 1m
Year
Note: The survey was conducted in 1979. 1982. 1985, 1988,
1990. 1991, 1992. 1993, 1994. 1995. 1996, and 1997.
Source: National Household Survey on Drug Abuse.
Percent reporting use
allair -------------------------------
311
30% __ ____________________________
25%____ ________________________
20R ____\___________________
Is% _____________-_ _______________
12-17 \
10% ---- --------
5% _-____5% ---------- - -- -- ----
is.naowe: __::a a.�_ _......
o%
1979 1912 191.9 19q am Im am 1994 Im
Year
Note: The survey was conducted in 1979, 1982. 1985. 1988, 1990.
1991. 1992, 1993. 1994. 1995. 1996, and 1997.
Source: National Household Survey on Drug Abuse.
H
Such use peaked in:
• 1982 for 12- to 17-year-olds at 1.9%
• 1979 for 18- to 25 -year-olds at 9.9%
1985 for 26- to 34 -year-olds at 6.3% (figure 1).
Overall, no significant increase has occurred in report-
ing current use of cocaine, including crack, since 1991.
In 1997, the percentage of Americans repotting use
of marijuana at least once in the past month was 5.1%
(11.1 million persons) of the population age 12 and
older, which was statistically unchanged from 1996.
Reported use of marijuana in the past month peaked in
1979 for 12- to 17-year-olds at 14.2% and for 18- to 25 -
year -olds at 35.6%. Past month marijuana use by per-
sons age 26 to 34 peaked in 1979 at 19.7% (figure 2).
Youth
Another major survey tracking illicit drug use trends is
the Monitoring the Future Study (also known as the High
School Senior Survey). When this annual NIDA -sponsored
survey began in 1975, 30.7% of high school seniors sur-
veyed reported that they had used some type of illicit
drug in the previous month. This figure declined gradually
to 14.4% in 1992, but increased to 25.6% in 1998 (figure
3). Similarly, past month drug use increased from 5.7%
in 1991 to 12.1 % in 1998 for 8th graders and from 11.6%
in 1991 to 21.5% in 1998 for 10th graders (table 2).
The increase in the use of marijuana has been espe-
cially pronounced. Between 1991 and 1998, past month
use of marijuana increased from:
♦ 13.8% to 22.8% among high school seniors (figure 4)
♦ 8.7% to 18.7% among 10th graders (table 2)
♦ 3.2% to 9.7% among 8th graders (table 2).
Percent reporting use
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
_________ _____�___`_`___ _�e��
Pan 30 do \
0% 1-
1915
1910 1985 1990 1995 1998
Year
Source: Monitoring the Future Study.
Percent reporting use
40%
35%
30%
u%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
__ _ ___ _
_______�u�___________________.
_________________________________
cocaine
Heroin
1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 19% 1998
Year
Source: Monitoring the Future Smtly.
Reported use of marijuana by high school seniors during
the past month peaked in 1978 at 37.1 % and declined to
its lowest level in 1992 at 11.9% (figure 4).
Reported use of cocaine by high school seniors within
the past month peaked in 1985 at 6.7%, up from 1.9%
in 1975 at the survey's inception. Cocaine use declined to
a low of 1.3% in 1992 and 1993. In 1998, past month co-
caine use was 2.4% among high school seniors (figure 4).
Researchers, noting the emergence of crack, included
it in the survey in 1986 as a separate question. In 1987
1.3% of high school seniors reported using crack at
least once within the past month. In 1998, 1.0% re-
ported using crack at least once during the past month.
Between 1995 and 1998, the use of inhalants declined
after 4 years of steadily increased use. Among 8th
graders, 4.8% reported past month use of inhalants, a
rate higher than the 2.9% reported by 10th graders and
the 2.3% reported by 12th graders.
Military
The U.S. Department of Defense Survey of Health -
Related Behavior Among Military Personnel examines
the drug use rates among those in the armed forces. In
1980, 27.6% of military respondents polled answered
that they used an illegal drug within the past month.
This proportion fell to 2.7% in 1998 (figure 5).
Criminal Offender Populations
Drug use by prison inmates prior to incarceration increased
between 1991 and 1997, according to findings from the
1997 Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Survey of Inmates
in State Correctional Facilities. The percentage of inmates
Percent reporting use
40% F
1:777....
`raa Year
20% t - - - -_ \- - -'c -------------------------------- ---
10%
-------- ----------------
u% r -------------
0%
19" 1982 1985
1992 1995 1999
Year
Note: The survey was conducted in 1980. 1982. 1985. 1988. 1992. and 1995.
Source: 1995 Deportment of Defence Survey of Health -Related
Behavior Among Military Personnel.
----------------------------------------
reporting any drug use in the month before the offense
increased from 50% in 1991 to 57% in 1997 (table 3).
However, the percentage of inmates using cocaine or
crack in the month before the offense remained stable at
25% from 1991 to 1997, while the percentage using mari-
juana increased from 32% in 1991 to 39% in 1997.
To benefit more communities throughout the country
and enhance understanding of national drug use trends,
the National Institute of Justice has expanded and reengi-
neered the Drug Use Forecasting program and renamed it
the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program.
ADAM has a network of 23 research sites in select
U.S. cities that will be expanded to 75 by fiscal year
2000. In order to monitor trends beyond the central
cities, each ADAM site annually collects outreach data
H-3
-4
Percent reporting use
gth graders
10th graders
Drugtype
1991
1997
1998
1991
1997
1998
Any illicit drug
5.7%
12.9%
12.1%
11.6% 23.0%
21.5%
Marijuarodhashish
3.2
10.2
9,7
8.7
20.5
18.7
Inhalants
4.4
5.6
4.8
2.7
3.0
2.9
LSD
0.6
1.5
1.1
1.5
2.8
2.7
Other
hallucinogens
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.4
1.2
14
Cocaine
0.5
LI
1.4
0.7
2,0
2.1
Crack
0.3
0.7
0.9
0.3
0.9
I.1
Other cocaine
0.5
0.8
L0
0.6
1.6
1,8
Heroin
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.7
Stimulants
2.6
3.8
3.3
3.3
5.1
5.1
Steroids
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.6
Source: Monitoring the Future Study.
----------------------------------------
Percent reporting use
40% F
1:777....
`raa Year
20% t - - - -_ \- - -'c -------------------------------- ---
10%
-------- ----------------
u% r -------------
0%
19" 1982 1985
1992 1995 1999
Year
Note: The survey was conducted in 1980. 1982. 1985. 1988. 1992. and 1995.
Source: 1995 Deportment of Defence Survey of Health -Related
Behavior Among Military Personnel.
----------------------------------------
reporting any drug use in the month before the offense
increased from 50% in 1991 to 57% in 1997 (table 3).
However, the percentage of inmates using cocaine or
crack in the month before the offense remained stable at
25% from 1991 to 1997, while the percentage using mari-
juana increased from 32% in 1991 to 39% in 1997.
To benefit more communities throughout the country
and enhance understanding of national drug use trends,
the National Institute of Justice has expanded and reengi-
neered the Drug Use Forecasting program and renamed it
the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program.
ADAM has a network of 23 research sites in select
U.S. cities that will be expanded to 75 by fiscal year
2000. In order to monitor trends beyond the central
cities, each ADAM site annually collects outreach data
H-3
-4
in suburban, rural, Native American, or other commu-
nities. It is anticipated that ADAM will be fully opera-
tional by fiscal year 2001.
Trends in drug use among arrestees vary by drug type. In
1997, older arrestees (age 36 and older) tested positive for
cocaine at 2 to 10 times the rate of younger arrestees.
The contrast is most extreme in Detroit and Washing-
ton, D.C., where about 5% of young arrestees (ages
15-20) tested positive for cocaine, compared to ap-
proximately 50% of older arrestees. Crack cocaine use
generally decreased in many cities; the decline was
most pronounced in cities in the Northeast and large
west coast cities. Methamphetamine use was evident
primarily among arrestees in ADAM cities in the Westem
and Southwestern States. Marijuana use among arrestees
was disproportionately concentrated among young
arrestees. However, 1997 data show that the recent ex-
pansion of marijuana use among young arrestees had
leveled off and in some cities decreased noticeably. A
decrease in the number of positive marijuana tests was
reported for adult males under 21 years of age in 15
sites, including 6 where the decrease was 5%p or more.
In 9 of 23 ADAM sites, the percentages of both male
and female arrestees who tested positive for at least
one drug at the time of arrest in 1997 remained the
same or decreased slightly from rates reported in 1996.
The positive test rate for at least one drug increased 5
to 6 percentage points for male arrestees in Phoenix,
Portland, and Fort Lauderdale. In Portland, New Or-
leans, Birmingham, and San Diego, the percentage of
female arrestees who tested positive for any drug in-
creased from 5 to 11 percentage points.
In 1997, the percentage of male arrestees testing pos-
itive for any drug at the time of arrest ranged from 51.4%
in San Jose to 80.3% in Chicago; for females the range
was from 37.6% in San Antonio to 80.5% in Manhattan.
In 1988, the percentage of male arrestees testing pos-
itive for any drug ranged from 54% in Indianapolis
and Kansas City to 83% in New York; for females the
range was from 44% in St. Louis to 81% in Detroit.
Number reporting use
160.000
Percent of Stale prison
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________/
inmates who used drugs:
in the month at the time
before the offense of the offense
Typeofdrug
1991 1997 1991 1997
Any drug
50% 57% 31% 32%
Marijuana
32 39 II 15
Cocaine/crack
25 25 14 15
Hernia/opiates
10 9 6 6
Barbiturates
4 5 1 2
Stimulants
7 9 3 4
Hallucinogens
4 4 2 2
Source: Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities.
in suburban, rural, Native American, or other commu-
nities. It is anticipated that ADAM will be fully opera-
tional by fiscal year 2001.
Trends in drug use among arrestees vary by drug type. In
1997, older arrestees (age 36 and older) tested positive for
cocaine at 2 to 10 times the rate of younger arrestees.
The contrast is most extreme in Detroit and Washing-
ton, D.C., where about 5% of young arrestees (ages
15-20) tested positive for cocaine, compared to ap-
proximately 50% of older arrestees. Crack cocaine use
generally decreased in many cities; the decline was
most pronounced in cities in the Northeast and large
west coast cities. Methamphetamine use was evident
primarily among arrestees in ADAM cities in the Westem
and Southwestern States. Marijuana use among arrestees
was disproportionately concentrated among young
arrestees. However, 1997 data show that the recent ex-
pansion of marijuana use among young arrestees had
leveled off and in some cities decreased noticeably. A
decrease in the number of positive marijuana tests was
reported for adult males under 21 years of age in 15
sites, including 6 where the decrease was 5%p or more.
In 9 of 23 ADAM sites, the percentages of both male
and female arrestees who tested positive for at least
one drug at the time of arrest in 1997 remained the
same or decreased slightly from rates reported in 1996.
The positive test rate for at least one drug increased 5
to 6 percentage points for male arrestees in Phoenix,
Portland, and Fort Lauderdale. In Portland, New Or-
leans, Birmingham, and San Diego, the percentage of
female arrestees who tested positive for any drug in-
creased from 5 to 11 percentage points.
In 1997, the percentage of male arrestees testing pos-
itive for any drug at the time of arrest ranged from 51.4%
in San Jose to 80.3% in Chicago; for females the range
was from 37.6% in San Antonio to 80.5% in Manhattan.
In 1988, the percentage of male arrestees testing pos-
itive for any drug ranged from 54% in Indianapolis
and Kansas City to 83% in New York; for females the
range was from 44% in St. Louis to 81% in Detroit.
Number reporting use
160.000
150,000
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________/
120,000
-i--- .
Cocsbw
90.600
I
� -� 'rt /
/ V
I
60,000
/ . _
/ Heraldmorphbte 11
30.000
i
___________________________ _______ __________ �___�..r .__._. .......____.__._
i Marijtoru/hrhleh
-�_—__—__--_—_------_----__------Methlepeed--
0
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1986 1985 1986 1907 1988 1909 1990 1991 1992 1993 19% 1995 1996
Year
Note: Data for January -June 1997 provided in source table on page 6.
Source: Drug Abuse Warning Network.
O
H-4
Emergency Department Data
Since October I, 1992, SAMHSA has sponsored the
Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN). Earlier surveys
were sponsored by the Drug Enforcement Administra-
tion, U.S. Department of Justice, and then by NIDA. Al-
though this indicator of drug use consequences began in
the early 1970s, nationally representative data are cur-
rently available only for 1978 through 1996.
The number of drug-related emergency department epi-
sodes increased from 323,100 in 1978 to an all-time high
of 518,521 in 1994. Between 1994 and 1996, drug-related
emergency department episodes decreased by I % (from
518,521 to 514,347). In the first half of 1997, cocaine -
related episodes comprised 30010 (80,018) of all emergency
department drug-related episodes. Cocaine -related episodes
in the first half of 1997 were at their highest level since the
DAWN survey began in 1978. Between 1990 and 1996,
marijuana/hashish-related episodes more than tripled (from
15,706 to 53,789) (figure 6). During that same period, the
number of heroin -related episodes more than doubled
(from 33,884 to 73,846).
Sources
U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Drugs and Jail Inmates, 1989 (BJS Special Report)
NCJ-130836, August 1991.
Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal
Prisoners, 1997, NCJ-172871, December 1998.
National Institute of Justice
1997 Annual Report on Adult and Juvenile Arrestees,
NCJ-171672, July 1998.
http://www.adam-nij-nettadam/index.htm
Drug Use Forecasting 1988Amua/Report, NCI -122225,
March 1990.
http://www.ncjrs.org/drgsuse.htm
Drug Use Forecasting 1995 Annual Reporr on Adult and
Juvenile Arrestees, NCJ-161721, June 1996.
http://www.ncjrs.org/drgsuse.htm
Drug Use Forecasting 1996 Annual Report on Adult and
Juvenile Arrestees, NCI -165691, June 1997.
http://www.ncjrs.org/drgsusc.htm
US. Department of Health and Human Services
National Institute on Drug Abuse
National Survey Results on Drug Use from the Monitoring
the Future Study, 19754994, 1996, 1997, and 1998.
http://samhsa.gov/oas/nhsda/ahsdafls.htin
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration
Historical Estimates from the Drug Abuse Warning
Network: Advance Report No. 16, August 1996.
H-5
Source Data
Percent reporting use
Year 12-17 18-25 26-34 33 and older
1979 1.5%
9.9%
3.0%
0.2%
1982 1.9
7.0
3.5
0.5
1985 1.5
8.1
6.3
0.5
1988 1.2
4.8
2.8
0.4
1990 0.6
2.3
1.9
0,2
1991 0.4
2.2
1.9
0,5
1992 0.3
2.0
L5
0.2
1993 0.4
1.6
Lit
0.4
1994 0.3
L2
1.3
0.4
1995 0.8
IJ
1.2
0.4
1996 0.6
2.0
1.5
0.4
1997 LO
1.2
0.9
0,5
Source: Office of Applied
Studies, SAMHSA.
National Household
Survey on Drug Abuse.
13.2
6.3
2.0
Percent reporting use
Year 12-17 18-25 26-34 35 and older
1979
14.2%
35.6%
19.7%
2.9%
1982
9.9
27.2
19.0
3.9
:985
10.2
21.7
19.0
2.6
1988
5.4
15.3
12.3
L8
1990
4.4
12.7
9.5
2.4
1991
3.6
12.9
7.7
2.6
1992
3.4
10.9
9.3
2.0
1993
4.0
11.1
7.5
2.4
1994
6.0
12.1
6.9
2.3
1995
8.2
12.0
6.7
I.8
19%
7.1
13.2
6.3
2.0
1997
9.4
12.8
6.0
2.6
Source:
Orr,u of Applied Studies. SAMHSA. National Household
Survey on Drug Abuse.
25.6
Note: Dao collected 1976-79 and 1981-84
not included to than.
Percent repordttg use
Year Ever Pot yew Past 30 days
1975
55.2%
45.0%
30.7%
1980
65.4
53.137.2
1985
60.6
46.3
29.7
1986
57.6
44.3
27.1
1987
56.6
41.7
24.7
1988
53.9
38.5
21.3
1989
50.9
35.4
19.7
1990
47.9
32.5
17.2
1991
"A
29.4
16.4
1992
40.7
27.1
14.4
1993
42.9
31.0
18.3
1994
45.6
35.8
21.9
1995
48.4
39.0
23.8
1996
50.8
40.2
24.6
1997
54.3
42.4
26.2
1998
54.1
41.4
25.6
Note: Dao collected 1976-79 and 1981-84
not included to than.
Source:
Monitoring the Future Study.
National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Main
Findings, 1979, 1982, 1985, 1988, 1990, 1991, /992
1993, 1994. 1995, and 1996.
http://samhsa.gov/oas/nhsda/nhsdafls.htm
National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Population
Estimates, /991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996,
and 1997.
http://www.samhsa.gov/OAS/nhsda/nhsdafls.htm.
Preliminary Estimates from the Drug Abuse Warning
Network: Advance Report No. 17, August 1996.
Preliminary Results from the / 997 National Household
Survey on Drug Abuse, August 1998.
Mid -Year 1997 Preliminary Emergency Department Data
from the Drug Abuse Warning Network, September 1998.
Percent reporting use
Year
Mar(luana
Cocaine
Heroin
1975
27.1%
1.9%
0.4%
1978
37.1
3.9
0.3
1981
31.6
5.8
0.2
1982
28.5
5.0
0.2
1983
27.0
4.9
0.2
1984
25.2
5.8
0.3
1985
25.7
6.7
0.3
1986
23.4
6.2
0.2
1987
21.0
4.3
0.2
1988
18.0
3.4
0.2
1989
16.7
2.8
0.3
1990
14.0
1.9
0.2
1991
13.8
1.4
0.2
1992
11.9
1.3
0.3
1993
15.5
1.3
0.2
1994
19.0
1.5
0.3
1995
21.2
1.8
0.6
1996
21.9
2.0
0.5
1997
23.7
2.3
0.5
1998
22.8
2.4
0.5
Note: Data collected 197677 and 1979-80 not included in chart.
Source:
Monitoring the Fugue Study.
668.153
403,578
Percent reporting use
Year Past 30 days Past year
1980
27.6%
36.7%
1982
19.0
26.6
1985
8.9
13.4
1988
4.8
8.9
1992
3.4
6.2
1995
3.0
6.5
1998
2.7
6.0
Source: 1998 Department of Defense Survey of Health -Related
Behavior Among Military Personnel.
Other Sources
Bray, R.M., et al., 1998 Department of Defense Survey
of Health -Related Behavior Among Military Personnel,
Research Triangle Institute, May 1998.
University of Michigan, Press release on Monitoring the
Future, December 18, 1998.
O
H-6
This fact sheet was written by Erin Steiner Broekhuysen of
the Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse. Technical review
was provided by Janet Greenblatt at the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration. The data presented in
this fact sheet arc as accurate as the sources from which they
were drawn. Responsibility for their selection and pre-
sentation rests with the Clearinghouse staff. This Clearing-
house is funded by the White House Office of National Drug
Control Policy to support drug control policy research. The
Clearinghouse is a component of the National Criminal Justice
Reference Service. For further information concerning the
content of this fact sheet, survey methodology, or other drug
policy issues, call:
1-800-666-3332
Write the Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse,
P.O. Box 6000, Rockville. MD 20849-6000.
or visit the World Wide Web site at:
httpil/www.whitehanedrugp*Ucy.gov
Kendal
hLrjluaru/ Meth/
Totaldrug
Taal drug
Year
Cocaine
morphia hashish
speed
mentions
episodes
1978
3,438
11,666
10,581
3,102
492,356
323,100
1979
5,347
11,900
11,284
3,845
511,124
329,109
1980
7,712
14,707
10.218
5,092
502.225
315.624
1981
9,750
17,112
10.644
6,469
534,828
329.923
1982
12,370
22.965
11.584
6,596
538.649
330.611
1983
15,188
25,100
10,765
6,278
510,879
314,616
1984
24,368
26,449
12,062
7,487
531,049
327,297
1985
28,827
28,877
12,651
6,135
536.135
334,503
1986
51,666
28,622
13,171
6,023
550.070
352.477
1987
91,791
32,696
22,276
7,707
664,554
396.414
1988
101,578
38,063
19,962
8,992
668.153
403,578
1989
110,013
41,656
20,703
8,722
713,392
425,904
1990
80,355
33,884
15,706
5,236
635,460
371,208
1991
101,189
35,898
16.251
4,887
674,861
393,968
1992
119,843
48,003
23.997
6,563
751.731
433.493
1993
123,423
63,232
28.873
9,926
796,762
460,910
1994
142,878
64.013
40,183
17,665
900,317
518,521
1995
135,801
70,838
45,271
15.936
901,206
513.633
19%
152,433
73,846
53,789
11,002
907,561
514,347
*1997
80,018
36,032
32.867
8.398
479,774
269,036
• Dau
available for January
-lune 1997
only.
Note:
Totals include
other
drugs not
specified above. Up
to four
substancesmay be
mentioned for each emergency department
episode:
themfom, Ne total
number of drug mentions exceeds the total
number
of drug episodes.
Source:
Drug Abuse Warning Network.
This fact sheet was written by Erin Steiner Broekhuysen of
the Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse. Technical review
was provided by Janet Greenblatt at the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration. The data presented in
this fact sheet arc as accurate as the sources from which they
were drawn. Responsibility for their selection and pre-
sentation rests with the Clearinghouse staff. This Clearing-
house is funded by the White House Office of National Drug
Control Policy to support drug control policy research. The
Clearinghouse is a component of the National Criminal Justice
Reference Service. For further information concerning the
content of this fact sheet, survey methodology, or other drug
policy issues, call:
1-800-666-3332
Write the Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse,
P.O. Box 6000, Rockville. MD 20849-6000.
or visit the World Wide Web site at:
httpil/www.whitehanedrugp*Ucy.gov