Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-07-18 Request for Executive Session Minutes from the Hawaii Police Commission O,�tY OF 1.4 Lincoln S.T.Ashida Harry Kim -`y� ��I�% Corporation Counsel Mayor •: =. Gerald Takase Assistant Corporation ,rE OiNF'+' Counsel COUNTY OF HAWAII OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325 • Hilo,Hawaii 96720-4262 • (808)961-8251 • Fax(808)961-8622 July 18, 2006 Sent via email; no hard copy will follow Mr. Stirling Morita spi(cD-flex.com President, Society of Professional Journalists Hawaii Chapter P.O. Box 3141 Honolulu, HI 96802 Dear Mr. Morita: RE: Your request for executive session minutes from the Hawai'i Police Commission Our Entry No.: WRK 06-12844 Greetings. This office represents the Hawaii Police Commission. We received a copy of your letter dated July 10, 2006, received by the Commission on July 18, 2006. A copy of your letter is attached hereto for reference purposes. This communication responds to your request for production of government records pursuant to Chapter 92F of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended (hereinafter "HRS"), relating to the Uniform Information Practice Act (hereinafter "UIPA"). The last two executive sessions held by the Hawai'i Police Commission for fiscal year 2004-05 (ending June 30, 2005), were on April 15, 2005, and June 17, 2005. There was no executive session held at the May 2005 monthly meeting of the Commission. Pursuant to HRS Section 92F-13(1), an agency may withhold disclosure of a government record if disclosure "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." At the onset, an agency must balance the individual's privacy interest against the public interest in disclosure. HRS Section 92F-14(a). HRS Section 92F-14 lists some examples of situations where an individual has a "significant privacy interest," and an agency may elect to withhold the Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Employer and Provider Mr. Stirling Morita July 18, 2006 Page 2 records. With respect to records of employee misconduct, subsection (b)(4) provides as follows (emphasis supplied): The following are examples of information in which the individual has a significant privacy interest: (4) Information in an agency's personnel file, or applications, nominations, recommendations, or proposals for public employment or appointment to a governmental position, except: (A) Information disclosed under section 9217-12(a)(14); and (B) The following information related to employment misconduct that results in an employee's suspension or discharge: (i) The name of the employee; (ii) The nature of the employment related misconduct; (iii) The agency's summary of the allegations of misconduct; (iv) Findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (v) The disciplinary action taken by the agency; when the following has occurred: the highest non judicial grievance adjustment procedure timely invoked by the employee or the employee's representative has concluded; a written decision sustaining the suspension or discharge has been issued after this procedure; and thirty calendar days have elapsed following the issuance of the decision;provided that this subparagraph shall not apply to a county police department officer except in a case which results in the discharge of the officer. Assuming this was a case involving a non-police officer, the County would disclose to you (1) the name of the employee, (2) the nature of the employment- related misconduct, (3) the agency's summary of the allegations of misconduct, (4) the findings of fact and conclusions of law (if any exist), and (5) the disciplinary action taken by the agency, assuming the misconduct resulted in the suspension or discharge of the employee. However, in the present case, since it involves police officers, the above- cited HRS provision allows the County to withhold any information since none of the allegations of misconduct resulted in the discharge of any of the police officers involved, so long as on balance, the right to privacy outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Enclosed are redacted copies of the meeting minutes you seek. The following is an explanation of the redactions made: Mr. Stirling Morita July 18, 2006 Page 3 Minutes of April 15, 2005 1. Complaint HPC 04-19: The names of the officer and complainant have been redacted, as well as the investigative findings. We did not redact the general nature of the complaint, as that information is already in the public domain as a result of being placed on the Commission's meeting agenda. 2. Complaint HPC 04-33: The names of the officer and complainant have been redacted, as well as legal advice given to the Commission by our office (attorney-client privileged), and investigative findings of the police department Internal Affairs Division. We did not redact the general nature of the complaint, as that information is already in the public domain as a result of being placed on the Commission's meeting agenda. 3. Complaint HPC 04-45: The statement by the police officer involved has been redacted in its entirety. 4. Complaint HPC 05-05: The names of the officer and complainant have been redacted. We did not redact the general nature of the complaint, as that information is already in the public domain as a result of being placed on the Commission's meeting agenda. 5. Complaint HPC 05-06: The names of the officer and complainant have been redacted. We did not redact the general nature of the complaint, as that information is already in the public domain as a result of being placed on the Commission's meeting agenda. 6. Complaint HPC 04-19: The names of the officer and complainant have been redacted. We did not redact the general nature of the complaint, as that information is already in the public domain as a result of being placed on the Commission's meeting agenda. 7. Complaint HPC 04-45: The name of the complainant has been redacted. We did not redact the general nature of the complaint, as that information is already in the public domain as a result of being placed on the Commission's meeting agenda. 8. Complaint HPC 05-05: The name of the complainant has been redacted. We did not redact the general nature of the complaint, as that information is already in the public domain as a result of being placed on the Commission's meeting agenda. 9. Complaint HPC 05-06: The name of the complainant has been redacted. We did not redact the general nature of the complaint, as that information is already in the public domain as a result of being placed on the Commission's meeting agenda. 10. Complaint HPC 04-33: The names of the officer and complainant have been redacted. We did not redact the general nature of the complaint, as that information is already in the public domain as a result of being placed on the Commission's meeting agenda. Mr. Stirling Morita July 18, 2006 Page 4 Minutes of June 17, 2005 1. Complaint HPC 05-10: The statement by the police officer involved has been redacted in its entirety. 2. Monthly Status Report of Complaints Referred to Chief Mahuna: We did not redact the general nature of the complaint, as that information is already in the public domain as a result of being placed on the Commission's meeting agenda. 3. Complaint HPC 05-03: The names of the officer and complainant have been redacted, as well as advice given by this office to the Commission (attorney-client privileged). We did not redact the general nature of the complaint, as that information is already in the public domain as a result of being placed on the Commission's meeting agenda. 4. Complaint HPC 05-09: The names of the officer and complainant have been redacted. We did not redact the general nature of the complaint, as that information is already in the public domain as a result of being placed on the Commission's meeting agenda. We hope these documents have been responsive to your request. Please know all redactions were done within the spirit of complying with the UIPA. If you dispute any of the reasons given for the redactions, we would be more than happy to join in a request to have the State of Hawaii Office of Information Practices review the un-redacted records in camera, and further evaluate our reasons given for the redactions. Please contact me at (808) 961-8304, extension 118, or via email at Lashida(aD-co.hawaii.hi.us, if you require further assistance. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Very truly yours, LINCOLN S. T. ASHIDA Corporation Counsel Encls. c: Hawaii Police Commission (w/ encls.) S: Boards/Police Commission/LSA Corresp./Letter to SPJ re records request 7-18-06/LSAmr JUL 1 1008 SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOUR N A LISTS NOD-Ld dw Hawaii Chapter P.O.Box 3141 Honolulu,HI 96802 July 10,2006 Hawaii County Police Commission 25 Aupuni St.Room 200 Hilo,11196720 Request for copies of executive session minutes We would like to receive copies of the minutes of the last two executive sessions held by your board (council)in the fiscal year ending June 30,2005. If the costs of the retrieval and copying exceed a total of$25,we would like to be informed about the costs and be given a cost breakdown. If you have any questions,you can reach me by mail at the Hawaii chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists,P.O.Box 3141,Honolulu,HI 96802 or by telephone at 529-4755(on Oahu),or by e-mail at spj@flex.com Thank you for your time and attention, Stirling Morita President e CONFIDENTIAL HAWAII COUNTY POLICE COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 15, 2005 EXECUTIVE SESSION MAYOR'S KONA OFFICE CONFERENCE ROOM CALL TO ORDER Chair John Bertsch called the meeting to order at 11:10 a.m. ROLL CALL Present: John M. Bertsch, Chair Also Present: Lincoln S. Ashida, Corporation Counsel Pudding Lassiter, Vice Chair Josie Pelayo, Secretary James A. Frazier, Member Louis Kaoiwi, Member Melvin S. Morimoto, Member Anita Politano Steckel, Member Absent: Karolyn Lundkvist Betsy Mitchell A quorum was present. INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINT COMPLAINT HPC 04-19: Investigator Dan Boe reported that claimed that- Officer failed to do his duty by allowing his mother to take custody of his son. He also wanted his guns that were in his mother's house. NOWanted the police to arrest his mother for harboring his son. Mr. Boe summarized his written status report of outstanding complaints. Vice Chair Lassiter expressed concern that some complaints were almost a year old. Boe stated that once they start an investigation, it usually takes about 60 days to complete. Commissioner Frazier explained that when they first hired Mr. Boe, they already had a backlog of about nine complaints. COMPLAINT HPC 04-33: Captain Tavares reported that the case was closed and found to be unfounded. Corporation Counsel Ashida stated that complained about two incidents, the initial one occurred on July 23 when went to his house and told him that he was a suspect in a theft at Wal-Mart. When the officer told him that he was seen S Hawaii County Police Commission Executive Session Minutes April 15, 2005 Page 2 on Wal-Mart video,J�got upset. That's one complaint. 'made a formal complaint to IA about another incident, one at Haili Christian School. Although did not make a formal complaint to the commission about that, he did mention it to the commission at the meeting in Waimea and stated that IA was investigating his complaints. Contrary to what' said, IA looked into the matter. Vice Chair Lassiter inquired as to the normal time procedure for an investigation and if the investigation could have taken place the next day. Commissioner Kaoiwi stated that the officer was working and had to do his job. The incident happened at 7:30 p.m., and the officer went to the house at 10:30 p.m., before he got off work. Corporation Counsel Ashida stated that made a complaint to the Ombudsman, and he needs to respond. When he was a prosecutor, they always told the officers that they had to do their investigation "now." Arguably, the officer could have been written up if he waited too long. 0 Captain Tavares reported that Complaint HPC 04-45, also filed a criminal complaint. STATUS REPORT OF COMPLAINTS REFERRED TO THE CHIEF Captain Tavares summarized the written report. Chair Bertsch requested that Captain Tavares explain the statement he made at the recent commander's meeting regarding complaints, which was noted in the commander's meeting minutes. Captain Tavares stated that the minutes were only a summary, not verbatim. They have had a lot of circumstances where sergeants immediately refer complainants to the police commission rather than at least listening toffiem first. Some of the complaints stemmed from criminal complaints. Commissioner Frazier stated that he supports Captain Tavares who has made it absolutely clear in the commander's meeting that an officer's supervisor should hear complaints. STATEMENTS ON COMPLAINTS (Complaint 04-45): Hawaii County Police Commission Executive Session Minutes April 15, 2005 Page 3 Commissioner Steckel stated that there were a number of people there who could verify that COMPLAINT HPC 05-05): Stated that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court generates the citation form. Relating to the intimidation, it says that if you pay the citation in court, the cost is higher. There is a presumption of guilt. There is a statute that says you can't intimidate a witness who goes to court. This format has been used for many years. �S(COMPLAINT HPC 05-06): Stated that his written complaint spells out what he means. He is not saying that anyone did anything wrong. The family told him that they were very upset about the press release. The press release was one-sided. He was there ten seconds after impact. He doesn't think was doing anything hurtful. The family doesn't even know what happened. Hopefully, this was just an oversight and it should have been more sensitive to the family. DELIBERATION OF COMPLAINTS COMPLAINT HPC 04-19: Complainant Ileged that because of the manner in which handled an incident with his mother and son, he was arrested numerous times for violating a TRO. (Investigated by Legal Eyes.) Commissioner Kaoiwi stated that all the man wants is more money to buy more stuff. He doesn't have any grounds to file a complaint. Commissioner Frazier felt that the officer should be exonerated. COMPLAINT HPC 04.45: Complainant alleged that while being held down by an officer, her leg was broken. Vice Chair Lassiter stated that she couldn't see any wrongdoing on the officer's part. The complainant admitted to having several drinks, which could have affected her memory. The investigation is well documented. Commissioner Steckel agreed that 3-4 drinks could have clouded her memory. Commissioner Frazier stated that there were many witnesses who gave statements in support of the officer. COMPLAINT HPC 05-05: Complainant�received a citation for expired safety sticker. He alleged that when officers write citations on the State of Hawaii, District Court and Summons form, it is intimidation. Chair Bertsch stated that the document is issued to the police department by the State of Hawaii, so it's not within the police commission's jurisdiction. Hawaii County Police Commission Executive Session Minutes April 15, 2005 Page 4 COMPLAINT HPC 05-06: Complainant lleged that the press release regarding a motorcycle fatality should have been written up differently. Chair Bertsch stated that a press release has to be factual. Vice Chair Lassiter pointed out that sometimes what is in paper is not the same as the press release from the police department. COMPLAINT HPC 04-33: Complainant omplained about the manner in which Officer spoke to him during an investigation. The complainant was referred to the Chief because complainant informed them that Internal Affairs was already conducting an investigation. Corporation Counsel requested to review the complaint, following a complaint o the Ombudsman's office. Chair Bertsch stated that his personal opinion is to exonerate the officer. Vice Chair Lassiter stated that she couldn't see where the officer did anything wrong. Vice Chair Lassiter motioned to return to open session. Commissioner Kaoiwi seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Open session convened at 12:40 p.m. SUBMITTED: APPROVED: JOSIE PELAYO, SECRETARY JOHN M. BERTSCH, CHAIR CONFIDENTIAL r HAWAII COUNTY POLICE COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 17, 2005 EXECUTIVE SESSION AUPUNI CENTER CONFERENCE ROOM CALL TO ORDER Chair John Bertsch called the meeting to order at 11:10 a.m. ROLL CALL Present: John M. Bertsch, Chair Also Present: Lincoln S. Ashida, Corporation Counsel Pudding Lassiter, Vice Chair Josie Pelayo, Secretary James A. Frazier, Member Louis Kaoiwi, Member Karolyn P. Lundkvist, Member Betsy Mitchell, Member Melvin S. Morimoto, Member Anita Politano Steckel, Member A quorum was present. STATEMENTS ON COMPLAINTS OFFICER (Complaint HPC 05-10) MONTHLY STATUS REPORT OF COMPLAINTS REFERRED TO CHIEF MAHUNA Captain Henry Tavares summarized the written report. Regarding the complaint of the officer throwing his flashlight at the vehicle, Ms. Pelayo stated that she received the complaint but is still waiting for the olice re ort. She inquired what they should do since Corporation Counsel Ashida stated that they should follow- through and complete the complaint process. Chair Bertsch informed the commissioners that Captain Tavares has a dual role at the meetings. He is also there to answer any questions about the General Orders, procedures, or complaints on the agenda. Captain Tavares exited. Hawaii County Police Commission Executive Session Minutes June 17, 2005 Page 2 INVESTIGATION AND DELIBERATION OF COMPLAINTS COMPLAINT HPC 05-03: Complainant moped was stolen. He alleged that Office hasn't kept in touch with him on the status of the investigation. Corporation Counsel Ashida stated tha The APB is not really effective unless it's high profile, and it won't happen on this scale with the volume of cases the department has. All the APB means is that it's on a list and if the officer comes in contact with the person, he checks the APB list. Officers can't call everyone on the status of their case every week. Commissioner Kaoiwi felt that the officer did is work. Commissioner Lundkvist stated that the complainant has to be proactive. Corporation Counsel Ashida stated that it is not improper for the commissioners to voice their opinion as to how they would vote, but they cannot solicit the vote of others in executive session. COMPLAINT HPC 05-09: Complainant's was involved in an automobile accident. She complained about the manner in which Officer conducted his investigation and alleged that the officer should have cited the other driver. Corporation Counsel Ashida stated that the officer did an investigation and turned it over to the prosecutor, and that person can still be prosecuted. If the officer gave a citation instead, then the man could not be prosecuted for a higher charge. Commissioner Lundkvist motioned and Vice Chair Lassiter seconded to return to regular session. The motion carried unanimously. The commission convened into regular session at 11:50 a.m. SUBMITTED: APPROVED: & -M. JOSIE PELAYO, SECRETARY JOHM M. BERTSCH, CHAIR